# Another sad case



## WaltL1

https://www.yahoo.com/news/baby-died-malnutrition-parents-refused-103444254.html

Not sure Im buying the "religious beliefs" aspect of this. Child died of malnutrition and dehydration.
Parents religious beliefs didn't cause that. Sure maybe their beliefs kept them from taking the child to the hospital but Im betting it was more out of fear for being charged with neglect than religious reasons.
Its very sad that there are good, loving folks out there who want to be parents but cant and then there are scum like these folks.


----------



## Spotlite

Unfortunately, religion gets abused just like guns and hamburgers. People will always justify their wrong within themselves. 

Sad situation for the little girl and her siblings and yes it is a shame because there are many people that would gladly take the child and raise it. 

I agree that this wasn't religious beliefs. Had it honestly been just religious beliefs, the fear would not have been there because they would have felt that they were really doing the right thing.  

_"They did not seek medical help for religious reasons, fear of having Child Protective Services called and a lack of trust in medical services,” according to court records"_


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Unfortunately, religion gets abused just like guns and hamburgers. People will always justify their wrong within themselves.
> 
> Sad situation for the little girl and her siblings and yes it is a shame because there are many people that would gladly take the child and raise it.
> 
> I agree that this wasn't religious beliefs. Had it honestly been just religious beliefs, the fear would not have been there because they would have felt that they were really doing the right thing.
> 
> _"They did not seek medical help for religious reasons, fear of having Child Protective Services called and a lack of trust in medical services,” according to court records"_


Yep. In this case I think you can throw out the first reason ^ as nothing more than a "defense strategy".


----------



## smokey30725

As a Christian, it sickens me when children die as a result of these misguided beliefs (although I agree that this sounds like they are trying to play the religious belief card as a defense). There were times throughout history when medical care was non-existent and faith was all a person had. We no longer live in those times. My belief system gives me faith. It also gives me the common sense to take my child to professional medical care when necessary. There's no excuse for that level of ignorance in this day and age.


----------



## 660griz

I think he just REALLY believed. I think the more religious you are, the lower your ability to function in our society.

_Welch has posted about Child Protective Services, a distrust of doctors and religious beliefs on Facebook. He called doctors "priesthoods of the medical cult" and spoke in one video post about refusing to get his children vaccinated. 

The righteous shall live by faith. It’s God who is sovereign over disease and those sorts of things and, of course, ultimately deaths," he said_


----------



## NCHillbilly

Sounds to me like unfit parents using their "religious beliefs" as an excuse for child abuse. Most people who are truly religious have more compassion than that toward their families.


----------



## JB0704

NCHillbilly said:


> Sounds to me like unfit parents using their "religious beliefs" as an excuse for child abuse.



Yup.  These people use religion to justify what they already were going to do.


----------



## WaltL1

Good to see you Brent!
I followed along you and your son's trip on FB and saw your pics here.
Im sure that's a trip your son will remember forever!


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Good to see you Brent!
> I followed along you and your son's trip on FB and saw your pics here.
> Im sure that's a trip your son will remember forever!



Thanks Walt!  It was definitely once in a lifetime, and thanks for following along. I was very surprised at how much folks enjoyed it.   He is moving into his dorm down in Americus Ga on SAturday, and I'm gonna miss having him around.  I'm very thankful I was able to pull that trip off.


----------



## Spotlite

660griz said:


> I think he just REALLY believed. I think the more religious you are, the lower your ability to function in our society.


Depends on what is religious.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/baby-died-malnutrition-parents-refused-103444254.html
> 
> Not sure Im buying the "religious beliefs" aspect of this. Child died of malnutrition and dehydration.
> Parents religious beliefs didn't cause that. Sure maybe their beliefs kept them from taking the child to the hospital but Im betting it was more out of fear for being charged with neglect than religious reasons.
> Its very sad that there are good, loving folks out there who want to be parents but cant and then there are scum like these folks.



If anyone can add a link as to what church or denomination these folks were I would appreciate it.  I didn't see it in the article, and I was hoping some light could be shed on it.

There's so much that isn't answered here.  

1st- severe dehydration can mimic malnurtrition and unless they are relying on blood work results, I wouldn't feel comfortable making that statement regarding "malnourished" or accepting it as true.  I've seen my share of severely dehydrated babies and children and when they get this dehydrated they can look like concentration camp kids.  All that can occur within a 24 hour period given fever, vomiting, diarrhea and no fluid intake and when they crash from this they're generally gone.  There's no getting them back.  
2nd-Children and babies can become critical very quick, much more-so than adults.  Of the children I have seen like that, they were in that condition mostly due to the ignorance of their parents, not out of outright neglect.  Again, the article doesn't give much detail with regards to this.
3rd- If the parents DID willfully subject their sick child to this type of death due to religious beliefs and not ignorance, they should die by starvation.  I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who hurts a child.  NONE.  Execute them and let God judge them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

NCHillbilly said:


> Sounds to me like unfit parents using their "religious beliefs" as an excuse for child abuse. Most people who are truly religious have more compassion than that toward their families.





> for child abuse



or just plain ignorant.  There's a lot of that out there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/69718...le-accused-murder-starve-baby-death-michigan/

Maybe we are all wrong on this.  This article adds a little more clarity.

[QUOTE
The couple claim they were previously visited by social workers after they refused to allow their children to be vaccinated.

Welch said in one video: "It didn't seem smart that you would be saving people who weren't the fittest.

"If evolution believes in survival of the fittest, why are we vaccinating everybody?

"Shouldn't we just let the weak die off and let the strong survive?"
][/QUOTE]

Using both religion/and Darwinism to validate their parental choices.  I suspect they are very ignorant, obviously twisted, and quiet possibly truly evil.

And who the heck posts this kind of tragedy on facebook for the public to see if it's your child.  I would be nibbling on a gun barrel.

I need to quit.  Been a bad day and this stuff more than anything else burns me up.


----------



## Spotlite

SemperFiDawg said:


> Using both religion/and Darwinism to validate their parental choices.  I suspect they are very ignorant, obviously twisted, and quiet possibly truly evil.


I think we are all on the same page.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Depends on what is religious.


The little church up the street from me has on their sign out front -
God Wants Spiritual Fruit
     Not Religious Nuts


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/69718...le-accused-murder-starve-baby-death-michigan/
> 
> Maybe we are all wrong on this.  This article adds a little more clarity.
> 
> [QUOTE
> The couple claim they were previously visited by social workers after they refused to allow their children to be vaccinated.
> 
> Welch said in one video: "It didn't seem smart that you would be saving people who weren't the fittest.
> 
> "If evolution believes in survival of the fittest, why are we vaccinating everybody?
> 
> "Shouldn't we just let the weak die off and let the strong survive?"
> ]



Using both religion/and Darwinism to validate their parental choices.  I suspect they are very ignorant, obviously twisted, and quiet possibly truly evil.

And who the heck posts this kind of tragedy on facebook for the public to see if it's your child.  I would be nibbling on a gun barrel.

I need to quit.  Been a bad day and this stuff more than anything else burns me up.[/QUOTE]
I MIGHT can understand their aversion to vaccinations.
But not for the reasons they gave.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> The little church up the street from me has on their sign out front -
> God Wants Spiritual Fruit
> Not Religious Nuts


lol yup! There is a good bit of difference between the Billy Graham religious and the Jim Jones religious.


----------



## bullethead

Speaking of Sad Cases, should we start a new thread for the 301 Servants of the Lord,,errr Priests in Pennsylvania?
Too many paths to pursue there...


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Speaking of Sad Cases, should we start a new thread for the 301 Servants of the Lord,,errr Priests in Pennsylvania?
> Too many paths to pursue there...


I just cant understand how, in this case Catholics, continue to fill the churches and continue to fill the baskets with cash.
The Church has done an incredibly good job indoctrinating folks that you "need" the churches to worship God.
I cant think of any other organization that parents would continue to support under the same circumstances.
I cant help but view it as the parents almost being complicit in the crime.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Speaking of Sad Cases, should we start a new thread for the 301 Servants of the Lord,,errr Priests in Pennsylvania?
> Too many paths to pursue there...





WaltL1 said:


> I just cant understand how, in this case Catholics, continue to fill the churches and continue to fill the baskets with cash.
> The Church has done an incredibly good job indoctrinating folks that you "need" the churches to worship God.
> I cant think of any other organization that parents would continue to support under the same circumstances.
> I cant help but view it as the parents almost being complicit in the crime.


I agree with both!! Can’t understand it and could in no way support it. The only positive thought, or I guess a question, does this represent the entire Catholic Church or just some bad apples? I listened to a morning talk show earlier and it seems that back in the 80’s the church recognized this issue and started “treatments” for the bad apples. Not very familiar with the Church and how it’s laid out in territories, districts, etc.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> I agree with both!! Can’t understand it and could in no way support it. The only positive thought, or I guess a question, does this represent the entire Catholic Church or just some bad apples? I listened to a morning talk show earlier and it seems that back in the 80’s the church recognized this issue and started “treatments” for the bad apples. Not very familiar with the Church and how it’s laid out in territories, districts, etc.


For me, the "few bad apples" defense only goes so far. Not every KKK member participated in a lynching, not every Muslim wants to kill Christians, very few Christians carry "death to our servicemen" signs......
But they ALL have a choice whether to support (literally) organizations that cover up/cover for those that do.
Why would the Church cover up/cover for these predator priests?
Cash flow, power and influence come to my mind.
As far as "treatments", it wasn't the priests that needed treatments, if the Church actually cared it would have been the victims who got treatments and the priests would have gone to jail.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I agree with both!! Can’t understand it and could in no way support it. The only positive thought, or I guess a question, does this represent the entire Catholic Church or just some bad apples? I listened to a morning talk show earlier and it seems that back in the 80’s the church recognized this issue and started “treatments” for the bad apples. Not very familiar with the Church and how it’s laid out in territories, districts, etc.


Well, the Diocese would remove the priest from one school/parish and place them in another. Not only were there over 300 of them but they were given new territory with fresh opportunities to make victims. And that is just in one state.

I take it to the highest level that is supposedly beyond the Church and the Pope and ask any and all religious people how the same god for everyone could have allowed this to happen at all?

These are the things that I have such a problem with. I absolutely cannot justify worshiping something that would allow such sick and twisted things to happen to children and ESPECIALLY by representatives of that same god. How anyone can/could make such an excuse for a god to do nothing about it but then claim the same god intervened in a medical case, car accident, lottery scratch off or job hiring are just as twisted as the sicko priests in my opinion.
Remember those preists said and taught the same things about God each sunday that we all hear/heard in church. Do you think they honestly believe the bull snort they are/were selling in order to still do what they did?


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Well, the Diocese would remove the priest from one school/parish and place them in another. Not only were there over 300 of them but they were given new territory with fresh opportunities to make victims. And that is just in one state.
> 
> I take it to the highest level that is supposedly beyond the Church and the Pope and ask any and all religious people how the same god for everyone could have allowed this to happen at all?
> 
> These are the things that I have such a problem with. I absolutely cannot justify worshiping something that would allow such sick and twisted things to happen to children and ESPECIALLY by representatives of that same god. How anyone can/could make such an excuse for a god to do nothing about it but then claim the same god intervened in a medical case, car accident, lottery scratch off or job hiring are just as twisted as the sicko priests in my opinion.
> Remember those preists said and taught the same things about God each sunday that we all hear/heard in church. Do you think they honestly believe the bull snort they are/were selling in order to still do what they did?




It’s all in God’s plan. 
We aren’t meant to understand it.


----------



## bullethead

ky55 said:


> It’s all in God’s plan.
> We aren’t meant to understand it.


Yeah.

I tend to think that a god would know our knowlege capabilities and things are understood as intended.


----------



## smokey30725

As a Christian, I can say without hesitation that every single priest, bishop, etc. that was a part of the act or the cover up should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I don't care if they wear fancy robes, a white collar, or just worked in an office. If the pope himself knows about it, he should pay the price as well. There's no excuse for the weakest among us to be victimized by those professing to be doing the Lord's work. It's disgusting and I'm all for blowing the lid off the whole thing and exposing the corruption at every single level of the church. I'd love to see every single one of these perverts have to do the perp walk in handcuffs and leg irons while every journalist in America watches on. Then, the Vatican can start turning loose of some of their holdings to pay for all the civil suits that come. It's hard to emphasize the love of God when evil men are doing terrible things within the walls of the church. Christians have got to call this stuff what it is and refuse for it to be buried any longer.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> For me, the "few bad apples" defense only goes so far. Not every KKK member participated in a lynching, not every Muslim wants to kill Christians, very few Christians carry "death to our servicemen" signs......
> But they ALL have a choice whether to support (literally) organizations that cover up/cover for those that do.
> Why would the Church cover up/cover for these predator priests?
> Cash flow, power and influence come to my mind.
> As far as "treatments", it wasn't the priests that needed treatments, if the Church actually cared it would have been the victims who got treatments and the priests would have gone to jail.


Yea I didn’t quite catch it all because I was driving but it seems that they were interviewing one of the church leaders and that was the leaders response, he thought it was absurd that a priest could return back in his position after completing treatment. Keep in mind that I didn’t get it all as it was getting static for the area I was in.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Well, the Diocese would remove the priest from one school/parish and place them in another. Not only were there over 300 of them but they were given new territory with fresh opportunities to make victims. And that is just in one state.
> 
> I take it to the highest level that is supposedly beyond the Church and the Pope and ask any and all religious people how the same god for everyone could have allowed this to happen at all?
> 
> These are the things that I have such a problem with. I absolutely cannot justify worshiping something that would allow such sick and twisted things to happen to children and ESPECIALLY by representatives of that same god. How anyone can/could make such an excuse for a god to do nothing about it but then claim the same god intervened in a medical case, car accident, lottery scratch off or job hiring are just as twisted as the sicko priests in my opinion.
> Remember those preists said and taught the same things about God each sunday that we all hear/heard in church. Do you think they honestly believe the bull snort they are/were selling in order to still do what they did?


While I certainly don’t disagree with your logic, man was given free will. We were never designed to be robots. I’ve seen others outside of the Catholic Church abuse the pulpit too. I don’t think for a minute that they believe what they’re teaching, I think they know that they’re abusing their position for their own personal desires and gain.

A lot of industry management will do the same, just means some people are that sick and twisted.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> It’s all in God’s plan.
> We aren’t meant to understand it.


Wrong. I know you’re mostly being sarcastic because that’s the reply people use as a crutch when no other answer is available, but only a fool would honestly believe that.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Wrong. I know you’re mostly being sarcastic because that’s the reply people use as a crutch when no other answer is available, but only a fool would honestly believe that.


Well what in your opinion would be or even could be the excuse/explanation that someone could give who truly believes that god steps in and intervenes in humans lives for things like car accidents, disease cures and such but the same god does not do anything about children getting molested and especially children who are molested by men of god?
Why would one garner more attention from a god than the other?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> While I certainly don’t disagree with your logic, man was given free will. We were never designed to be robots. I’ve seen others outside of the Catholic Church abuse the pulpit too. I don’t think for a minute that they believe what they’re teaching, I think they know that they’re abusing their position for their own personal desires and gain.
> 
> A lot of industry management will do the same, just means some people are that sick and twisted.


I honestly think the vast majority of clergy in any form do not fully believe what they are teaching. Sadly they are salesman.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Yea I didn’t quite catch it all because I was driving but it seems that they were interviewing one of the church leaders and that was the leaders response, he thought it was absurd that a priest could return back in his position after completing treatment. Keep in mind that I didn’t get it all as it was getting static for the area I was in.


Yeah this is a touchy subject for me. I was Catholic for most of my life and all of my family still is. I see the turmoil, embarassment and shame this particular subject causes them particularly my mother.
Walking away from the Church is just not an option for them so they are really caught between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah this is a touchy subject for me. I was Catholic for most of my life and all of my family still is. I see the turmoil, embarassment and shame this particular subject causes them particularly my mother.
> Walking away from the Church is just not an option for them so they are really caught between a rock and a hard place.


Yes, it's really tough, I pray that God will provide comfort and guidance.


----------



## red neck richie

WaltL1 said:


> For me, the "few bad apples" defense only goes so far. Not every KKK member participated in a lynching, not every Muslim wants to kill Christians, very few Christians carry "death to our servicemen" signs......
> But they ALL have a choice whether to support (literally) organizations that cover up/cover for those that do.
> Why would the Church cover up/cover for these predator priests?
> Cash flow, power and influence come to my mind.
> As far as "treatments", it wasn't the priests that needed treatments, if the Church actually cared it would have been the victims who got treatments and the priests would have gone to jail.


They will go to jail. Last I heard pedophiles dont make out too well in prison. Or Heaven for that matter.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Well what in your opinion would be or even could be the excuse/explanation that someone could give who truly believes that god steps in and intervenes in humans lives for things like car accidents, disease cures and such but the same god does not do anything about children getting molested and especially children who are molested by men of god?
> Why would one garner more attention from a god than the other?


I don't really have an opinion, I have to lean on scripture.

I wouldn't call them men of god or God.

James 1: 13 - 15 

1 Peter 5:8

Matthew 5:45

Why do bad things happen to innocent people? I only know this, I pray daily for the protection of my kids and family. James 5:16

I readily admit I don't have all the answers, and I do have some questions myself. But I get more benefit and am better off in every measure from my faith and staying in it than I was when I stepped away from it long enough explore.


----------



## red neck richie

Spotlite said:


> I don't really have an opinion, I have to lean on scripture.
> 
> I wouldn't call them men of god or God.
> 
> James 1: 13 - 15
> 
> 1 Peter 5:8
> 
> Matthew 5:45
> 
> Why do bad things happen to innocent people? I only know this, I pray daily for the protection of my kids and family. James 5:16
> 
> I readily admit I don't have all the answers, and I do have some questions myself. But I get more benefit and am better off in every measure from my faith and staying in it than I was when I stepped away from it long enough explore.


Matthew 18:6


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Matthew 18:6


Oh so, God won't prevent it from happening but he will make sure the offenders pay later. No worries about the victims living with it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don't really have an opinion, I have to lean on scripture.
> 
> I wouldn't call them men of god or God.
> 
> James 1: 13 - 15
> 
> 1 Peter 5:8
> 
> Matthew 5:45
> 
> Why do bad things happen to innocent people? I only know this, I pray daily for the protection of my kids and family. James 5:16
> 
> I readily admit I don't have all the answers, and I do have some questions myself. But I get more benefit and am better off in every measure from my faith and staying in it than I was when I stepped away from it long enough explore.


So what does prayer actually do?
Do you think that maybe, possibly, some of the victims prayed for it to stop while in the act?
Why wouldn't that prayer be answered?

What does the promise to be taken care of later do for the poor kids during and after ?

I mean why not stop it before it happens, especially if god steps in for so many other things?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Oh so, God won't prevent it from happening but he will make sure the offenders pay later. No worries about the victims living with it.


Free will my Brother. Free will. There is no excuse for what they did. I am pretty angry about it. I never claimed to know why these things happen. I only claim to know the punishment according to the word. I feel for the victims and there families. I will admit I dont get the whole Catholic cover up. I am non denominational. As I have mentioned before denominations are for men to argue over.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Free will my Brother. Free will. There is no excuse for what they did. I am pretty angry about it. I never claimed to know why these things happen. I only claim to know the punishment according to the word. I feel for the victims and there families. I will admit I dont get the whole Catholic cover up. I am non denominational. As I have mentioned before denominations are for men to argue over.


Free Will?
But many say that god is involved and interacts and actually changes the outcome in peoples lives.
You may have told a story where he changed the outcome for you or a loved one right?
Who's free will was god acknowledging,  the pedo preists or the children's?

Does not god know what will happen?
Why would he prevent evil for some and not others.

I think free will is an excuse that contradicts things some believers say is true or happens.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Free Will?
> But many say that god is involved and interacts and actually changes the outcome in peoples lives.
> You may have told a story where he changed the outcome for you or a loved one right?
> Who's free will was god acknowledging,  the pedo preists or the children's?
> 
> Does not god know what will happen?
> Why would he prevent evil for some and not others.
> 
> I think free will is an excuse that contradicts things some believers say is true or happens.


I have thought those same thoughts. Why do these things happen? It is natural to wonder why? It seems unfair. I dont have all the answers you are looking for. But I have felt his presence. You are free to believe whatever you choose based on your experiences and research and I am free to do the same. You came up with a different conclusion than I did. I like to try and understand why people think what they think and how they came to think that. Peace be with you.


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> I have thought those same thoughts. Why do these things happen? It is natural to wonder why? It seems unfair. I dont have all the answers you are looking for. But I have felt his presence. You are free to believe whatever you choose based on your experiences and research and I am free to do the same. You came up with a different conclusion than I did. I like to try and understand why people think what they think and how they came to think that. Peace be with you.


Always liked you Richie, but I wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft pole if I was a believer either. PBWY too.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Yes, it's really tough, I pray that God will provide comfort and guidance.


They would appreciate that. Thank you.


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> Always liked you Richie, but I wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft pole if I was a believer either. PBWY too.


Are you going deer hunting up to that turkey lodge you keep hammering those gobblers on this year?


----------



## bullethead

red neck richie said:


> Are you going deer hunting up to that turkey lodge you keep hammering those gobblers on this year?


No. Its too busy for me to get away that time of year. But my buddies have killed some flat out Hammers there.
But lets not change the subject


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I don't really have an opinion, I have to lean on scripture.
> 
> I wouldn't call them men of god or God.
> 
> James 1: 13 - 15
> 
> 1 Peter 5:8
> 
> Matthew 5:45
> 
> Why do bad things happen to innocent people? I only know this, I pray daily for the protection of my kids and family. James 5:16
> 
> I readily admit I don't have all the answers, and I do have some questions myself. But I get more benefit and am better off in every measure from my faith and staying in it than I was when I stepped away from it long enough explore.


I have to ask,even though I agree about those priests not being men of god,,, who would know that? Who would be the only thing capable to see into their hearts and do something about it early on before they gain the trust of those children? Who could be in place with the insight to forsee it and the power to prevent it? Who could let it go all the way to the point where action proved intent and could stop it as soon as hands were laid on the child?

Who with that power looked the other way?


----------



## red neck richie

bullethead said:


> I have to ask,even though I agree about those priests not being men of god,,, who would know that? Who would be the only thing capable to see into their hearts and do something about it early on before they gain the trust of those children? Who could be in place with the insight to forsee it and the power to prevent it? Who could let it go all the way to the point where action proved intent and could stop it as soon as hands were laid on the child?
> 
> Who with that power looked the other way?


I see what your trying to do there.


----------



## red neck richie

Yall know good and well there are men out there that will do anything for 30 pieces of silver. Why would this be baffling to you?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I have to ask,even though I agree about those priests not being men of god,,, who would know that? Who would be the only thing capable to see into their hearts and do something about it early on before they gain the trust of those children? Who could be in place with the insight to forsee it and the power to prevent it? Who could let it go all the way to the point where action proved intent and could stop it as soon as hands were laid on the child?
> 
> Who with that power looked the other way?


 In this case, the Church has a history of this and has failed to listen to the victims, at least according to the church leader that was interviewed on the talk show this morning. You can’t ignore situations and fault anyone else. When I say that, I don’t believe that every Catholic member has ignored this. I imagine there are many in disbelief and surprised that it happened.

In general, as nature has it, the lion preys on the weak.

It’s not just church, look at the number of innocent people that get scammed in insurance fraud or taken advantage of in other aspects.

Controlling man sort of goes against whosever will.

Edited to add: What about the parents? Do they not check out who they trust their child with? What about these same parents at school? Did they just trust what happens behind closed doors? Did they ever talk to their children to find out things? I know at my church every Sunday school room and office has windows that are mirrored on the inside so you can’t get distracted from people looking in.


----------



## bullethead

0-2 on any mention of who could have prevented these things. It sounds like a lot of buck passing is going on here. Why does God get credit for all the good and not a mention when he drops the ball?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

I once worked with a fella that was a Jehovah's Witness. We got in to many discussions about Christianity that usually ended with him getting all red faced and storming out of the office. One of the biggest was their belief against receiving blood transfusions. I posed the question; if you had a child that needed blood you would let him die instead of giving him the available medical care and blood and he issued and emphatic yes. 

Twisted bunch of folks out there with their cult beliefs.


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I once worked with a fella that was a Jehovah's Witness. We got in to many discussions about Christianity that usually ended with him getting all red faced and storming out of the office. One of the biggest was their belief against receiving blood transfusions. I posed the question; if you had a child that needed blood you would let him die instead of giving him the available medical care and blood and he issued and emphatic yes.
> 
> Twisted bunch of folks out there with their cult beliefs.


Yeah, like eating the body and drinking the blood of who they worship. Nutty


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

bullethead said:


> Yeah, like eating the body and drinking the blood of who they worship. Nutty


So symbolic metaphors elude you?


----------



## bullethead

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So symbolic metaphors elude you?


No not all, pretty much just the cult type stuff that you referred to.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> 0-2 on any mention of who could have prevented these things. It sounds like a lot of buck passing is going on here. Why does God get credit for all the good and not a mention when he drops the ball?


If you continually stick your hand out there for the dog to bite, you can blame God all you want but whose fault is it?  

This organization repeatedly has the same growing issue and parents are aware.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

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

I get the feeling that some look to God as a socialist dictator where people have no responsibility. 

The good people in the Catholic Church need to figure out how young kids and priests are given enough private time for these incidents to happen and reshape their policies to prevent it. I know of no other organization where this is prevalent.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> No not all, pretty much just the cult type stuff that you referred to.




Communion has absolutely nothing to do with "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" in the physical manner that so many try to use to beat the Christian up with. I laugh every time it is pointed out by someone that claims to know the Bible and having done so much research.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I once worked with a fella that was a Jehovah's Witness. We got in to many discussions about Christianity that usually ended with him getting all red faced and storming out of the office. One of the biggest was their belief against receiving blood transfusions. I posed the question; if you had a child that needed blood you would let him die instead of giving him the available medical care and blood and he issued and emphatic yes.
> 
> Twisted bunch of folks out there with their cult beliefs.


Just a comment on the seemingly popular use of the word "cult" by Christians to describe "them" but certainly not "us".....
I think you/they forget your history of Christianity..


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If you continually stick your hand out there for the dog to bite, you can blame God all you want but whose fault is it?
> 
> This organization repeatedly has the same growing issue and parents are aware.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
> 
> I get the feeling that some look to God as a socialist dictator where people have no responsibility.
> 
> The good people in the Catholic Church need to figure out how young kids and priests are given enough private time for these incidents to happen and reshape their policies to prevent it. I know of no other organization where this is prevalent.


What you are missing is that I am certain that there is no one else to blame but people. 100% people.

I am trying to get you to see that. I am trying to point out the ridiculousness of the mindset and claims that there is an All Loving, All knowing, All powerful being that looks out for his "children". I am constantly told that this god makes it a point to grant prayers and right the wrongs.  I am told this god changes the outcome of bad situations.
Well, if that is true , where the heck has he been through all this? I mean if there ever was a time to show his presence and make a stand against evil wouldn't priests using his name to do their dirty deeds be the ABSOLUTE BEST time to step in? Even once?

No spotlite I do not blame God,  but the believers who continually regurgitate his existence and involvement in everything else automatically involve him in these matters. At the very least he is guilty by association if he doesn't exist and horribly unworthy of praise or worship if he does exist due to his unwillingness or inability to step in.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Communion has absolutely nothing to do with "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" in the physical manner that so many try to use to beat the Christian up with. I laugh every time it is pointed out by someone that claims to know the Bible and having done so much research.


*Then Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.”* [Joh 6:53-56] 
What would a 7 year old think?
How about a tribe who never heard of Jesus or the bible?


----------



## bullethead

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners

"In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely_ saying_ that the bread was his body; he was_ decreeing_ that it should be so and that it _is_ so.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Communion has absolutely nothing to do with "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" in the physical manner that so many try to use to beat the Christian up with. I laugh every time it is pointed out by someone that claims to know the Bible and having done so much research.


Transubstantiation. 
It is EXACTLY eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Transubstantiation.
> It is EXACTLY eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ.


As someone who partook in Communion many, many times it was completely understood that this was in fact the body of Christ and NOT some little round cracker that kinda represented that.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> What you are missing is that I am certain that there is no one else to blame but people. 100% people.
> 
> I am trying to get you to see that. I am trying to point out the ridiculousness of the mindset and claims that there is an All Loving, All knowing, All powerful being that looks out for his "children". I am constantly told that this god makes it a point to grant prayers and right the wrongs.  I am told this god changes the outcome of bad situations.
> Well, if that is true , where the heck has he been through all this? I mean if there ever was a time to show his presence and make a stand against evil wouldn't priests using his name to do their dirty deeds be the ABSOLUTE BEST time to step in? Even once?
> 
> No spotlite I do not blame God,  but the believers who continually regurgitate his existence and involvement in everything else automatically involve him in these matters. At the very least he is guilty by association if he doesn't exist and horribly unworthy of praise or worship if he does exist due to his unwillingness or inability to step in.


I’ve been pointing to people. Who says he hasn’t stepped in and where?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Transubstantiation.
> It is EXACTLY eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ.


That’s not intended to be literal flesh and blood.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> As someone who partook in Communion many, many times it was completely understood that this was in fact the body of Christ and NOT some little round cracker that kinda represented that.


But it’s not meant as a piece of flesh. It’s so much deeper than that and what it means to take if the body of Christ. Carnality corrupts scripture.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> That’s not intended to be literal flesh and blood.


That is your interpretation or upbringing.  Catholics are taught that it absolutely is the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Check into the Council of Trent


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> But it’s not meant as a piece of flesh. It’s so much deeper than that and what it means to take if the body of Christ. Carnality corrupts scripture.


I can only tell you that the belief was that it in fact was the body of Christ. A piece of Christ. Not a cracker, a wafer or a representative of Christs flesh.
It was believed to be, in fact, a literal piece of Christ.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’ve been pointing to people. Who says he hasn’t stepped in and where?


Yeah, ok, alright, your God and 10,000 other gods ALL stepped in. But NONE of them did enough to stop it.

This game of make believe and unprovable claims has to stop and reality needs to start.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I can only tell you that the belief was that it in fact was the body of Christ. A piece of Christ. Not a cracker, a wafer or a representative of Christs flesh.
> It was believed to be, in fact, a literal piece of Christ.


Yes, Exactly, through Transubstantiation.


----------



## bullethead

*Transubstantiation* (Latin: _transsubstantiatio_; Greek: μετουσίωσις _metousiosis_) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The *real presence of Christ in the Eucharist* is a term used in Christian theology to express the doctrine that Jesus is _really_ or _substantially_ present in the Eucharist, not merely symbolically or metaphorically.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> As someone who partook in Communion many, many times it was completely understood that this was in fact the body of Christ and NOT some little round cracker that kinda represented that.


 Have a co-worker who swears as a young alter boy he got his head beat in by a Priest because he dropped a cracker.  He's a pathological liar, so who knows if it's true, but it IS a reason he gives for his disdain for the Catholic Church and his story hasn't changed over the years.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah this is a touchy subject for me. I was Catholic for most of my life and all of my family still is. I see the turmoil, embarassment and shame this particular subject causes them particularly my mother.
> Walking away from the Church is just not an option for them so they are really caught between a rock and a hard place.



I think you nailed it precisely.  For the loyal Catholics I know, the church is literally part of their personal identity.  The church's shame is their personal shame.  It's inseparable.    Protestantism isn't like that for most part unless it's a denomination with a cultish lean.


----------



## ky55

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you nailed it precisely.  For the loyal Catholics I know, the church is literally part of their personal identity.  The church's shame is their personal shame.  It's inseparable.    Protestantism isn't like that for most part unless it's a denomination with a cultish lean.



Which denominations have the “cultish lean”?


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Have a co-worker who swears as a young alter boy he got his head beat in by a Priest because he dropped a cracker.  He's a pathological liar, so who knows if it's true, but it IS a reason he gives for his disdain for the Catholic Church and his story hasn't changed over the years.


I certainly cant speak to your co-worker's honesty but dropping Jesus on the floor probably deserves a good smack 

And I do have to say that although we are talking about a very negative subject here, the priests that I had, at least as far as I know/experienced were good, caring men of God and had 0 to do with my leaving religion behind.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I don't really have an opinion, I have to lean on scripture.
> 
> I wouldn't call them men of god or God.
> 
> James 1: 13 - 15
> 
> 1 Peter 5:8
> 
> Matthew 5:45
> 
> Why do bad things happen to innocent people? I only know this, I pray daily for the protection of my kids and family. James 5:16
> 
> I readily admit I don't have all the answers, and I do have some questions myself. But I get more benefit and am better off in every measure from my faith and staying in it than I was when I stepped away from it long enough explore.



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> That is your interpretation or upbringing.  Catholics are taught that it absolutely is the literal Body and Blood of Christ.
> 
> Check into the Council of Trent



And we are discussing the Catholic Church here......right?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Yeah, ok, alright, your God and 10,000 other gods ALL stepped in. But NONE of them did enough to stop it.
> 
> This game of make believe and unprovable claims has to stop and reality needs to start.


The game of blaming is what needs to stop. The Church should not have covered it so many times in the past. Make believe is a matter of opinion.  You are entitled to that.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> Just a comment on the seemingly popular use of the word "cult" by Christians to describe "them" but certainly not "us".....
> I think you/they forget your history of Christianity..


All of humanity was a murdering tyrant if you go far enough back in history, even you. 
How broad do you want to make this playing field?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I can only tell you that the belief was that it in fact was the body of Christ. A piece of Christ. Not a cracker, a wafer or a representative of Christs flesh.
> It was believed to be, in fact, a literal piece of Christ.


I can see and understand how that’s taught.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> All of humanity was a murdering tyrant if you go far enough back in history, even you.
> How broad do you want to make this playing field?


You are giving the word cult" a negative connotation. And therein lies the problem.
*a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
*a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Think Roman times.
Christianity was the "cult".


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> That is your interpretation or upbringing.  Catholics are taught that it absolutely is the literal Body and Blood of Christ.
> 
> Check into the Council of Trent



He’s correct spotlight.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> You are giving the word cult" a negative connotation. And therein lies the problem.
> *a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
> *a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
> 
> Think Roman times.
> Christianity was the "cult".


This isn't Roman Times and JW's don't put their faith in religious beliefs based on a deity. They put their faith in Charles Taze Russel and his twisted interpretations and other works he published. Just like the millions that are now putting their faith in the twisted teachings of "God the Mother" Ahn Sahng-hong.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> The game of blaming is what needs to stop. The Church should not have covered it so many times in the past. Make believe is a matter of opinion.  You are entitled to that.


Blame and Credit are equally expected and given. In all cases humans should get and deserve both.

When someone wants to introduce another source into the mix to give credit to that same source should also be able to get the blame.

Since the despicable acts occurred by not just religious men but Clergy I have a hard time when religious people stop the buck at the human when it is something bad, but leap frog the human element and go straight to god when it is something good.

If a god truly exists where was he in these cases? If god can cure cancer for one person why wouldn't he stop the molestation of another, especially if the molester is a representative of that very godand the child is a believer in that very god?

Regarding myself, I blame the people who perpetrated the crime.
When I am talking to people who insist god exists and is involved in the lives of humans...I would like to know where that god is during the bad times? Why can't he get the blame the same as he gets the credit? Especially when his employees are the ones at fault...


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> This isn't Roman Times and JW's don't put their faith in religious beliefs based on a deity. They put their faith in Charles Taze Russel and his twisted interpretations and other works he published. Just like the millions that are now putting their faith in the twisted teachings of "God the Mother" Ahn Sahng-hong.


My post to you was specifically about the popular use of the word "cult" by Christians in a negative manner to describe other religions and even different denominations within your own religions.
And the fact is "cult" once applied to Christianity too.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

WaltL1 said:


> My post to you was specifically about the popular use of the word "cult" by Christians in a negative manner to describe other religions and even different denominations within your own religions.
> And the fact is "cult" once applied to Christianity too.


I don't apply it to different denominations.


----------



## bullethead

From JW.org

Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:


We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.

 they are a christian denomination.


----------



## WaltL1

Miguel Cervantes said:


> I don't apply it to different denominations.


I guess my point is, I personally might refrain from referring to others as a cult when I consider the fact that my beliefs were once a cult also.
But again that's just me. Not saying its right or wrong, just saying its something that many Christians don't seem to consider.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> From JW.org
> 
> Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:
> 
> 
> We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
> We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
> When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
> We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
> We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
> 
> they are a christian denomination.


Its interesting how individual Christians decide for themselves who are Christians and who are not based on some imaginary scale of "yeah that's close enough to what I believe so they are Christians" or "nah that's just too far off what I believe so no they aren't Christians".
And then on a different subject turn right around and say "only God can judge" etc.
Its ALWAYS what they believe compared to what I believe and NEVER what I believe compared to what they believe.
So what becomes the final word? The Bible. Which the meaning of has been debated for centuries.
What a vicious circle religion is.
Seems to me "Do you believe in God yes or no" would alleviate most of that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ky55 said:


> Which denominations have the “cultish lean”?



My wife came from a Oneness Pentecostal church and they can be a bit cultish imho. Her pastor tried to control everyone in the congregation down to their jobs.  My wife, before we were married, took a side job painting houses, to make ends meet, only to have the preacher preach against women painting houses the following Sunday.  Just one of many examples.  Lot of physical abuse covered up and women encouraged to stay.  Like I said, just my observation, but when the pastor and certain senior members of a church starts dictating personal opinions and using their power to manipulate members.....to me that's cultish.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Its interesting how individual Christians decide for themselves who are Christians and who are not based on some imaginary scale of "yeah that's close enough to what I believe so they are Christians" or "nah that's just too far off what I believe so no they aren't Christians".
> And then on a different subject turn right around and say "only God can judge" etc.



Not all of us. Some of us believe in scripture where it says these signs will follow you. That’s the preamble for what bullet wants to push with these signs should follow everyone that believes. Truth is, everyone doesn’t believe entirely, they pick and choose portions they like and wonder why it doesn’t work for them.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> My wife came from a Oneness Pentecostal church and they can be a bit cultish imho. Her pastor tried to control everyone in the congregation down to their jobs.  My wife, before we were married, took a side job painting houses, to make ends meet, only to have the preacher preach against women painting houses the following Sunday.  Just one of many examples.  Lot of physical abuse covered up and women encouraged to stay.  Like I said, just my observation, but when the pastor and certain senior members of a church starts dictating personal opinions and using their power to manipulate members.....to me that's cultish.


I can see your reasoning


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not all of us. Some of us believe in scripture where it says these signs will follow you. That’s the preamble for what bullet wants to push with these signs should follow everyone that believes. Truth is, everyone doesn’t believe entirely, they pick and choose portions they like and wonder why it doesn’t work for them.


I want to know why people to continue to ignore the bad and give credit only to the good.
I will agree with you that people pick and choose and what I've been talking about all along in here proves that.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Not all of us. Some of us believe in scripture where it says these signs will follow you. That’s the preamble for what bullet wants to push with these signs should follow everyone that believes. Truth is, everyone doesn’t believe entirely, they pick and choose portions they like and wonder why it doesn’t work for them.


I definitely agree with you when you say "not all of us".
If there is one thing I have learned its that "not all of you" agree on darn near anything other than the existence of God.
So yes, its technically not accurate of me to say "Christians".
Just be aware that I do realize there are a wide range of beliefs that fall under "Christians".


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I want to know why people to continue to ignore the bad and give credit only to the good.
> I will agree with you that people pick and choose and what I've been talking about all along in here proves that.


People really don’t ignore the bad as in just turning their head like it didn’t happen. 

We recognize, know and expect it to exist and know that we are exposed to it. An honest Christian will accept the outcome as God “knows best” regardless. I may not get every prayer I pray answered, and sometimes later down the road I’m thankful some of those were not, but I’ve had some pretty serious ones that were answered.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I definitely agree with you when you say "not all of us".
> If there is one thing I have learned its that "not all of you" agree on darn near anything other than the existence of God.
> So yes, its technically not accurate of me to say "Christians".
> Just be aware that I do realize there are a wide range of beliefs that fall under "Christians".


We as humans are just built that way. I say it all the time, if we could agree on everything, there’d be no need for a defense and prosecutor in court arguing over the same law.


----------



## Spotlite

SemperFiDawg said:


> My wife came from a Oneness Pentecostal church and they can be a bit cultish imho. Her pastor tried to control everyone in the congregation down to their jobs.  My wife, before we were married, took a side job painting houses, to make ends meet, only to have the preacher preach against women painting houses the following Sunday.  Just one of many examples.  Lot of physical abuse covered up and women encouraged to stay.  Like I said, just my observation, but when the pastor and certain senior members of a church starts dictating personal opinions and using their power to manipulate members.....to me that's cultish.


I could agree with getting away from that. Although I don’t view the whole denomination the way I view a certain church in a denomination. There’s good honest people in all denominations that are really doing everything they know to live  right. Those will find their way.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> People really don’t ignore the bad as in just turning their head like it didn’t happen.
> 
> We recognize, know and expect it to exist and know that we are exposed to it. An honest Christian will accept the outcome as God “knows best” regardless. I may not get every prayer I pray answered, and sometimes later down the road I’m thankful some of those were not, but I’ve had some pretty serious ones that were answered.


Or is it that some things worked out to your benefit and some did not?

I ask because if you've had multiple prayers answered just for you alone , how is a child that is peril denied an request?

Frankly, it's my opinion that it is a twisted thought process to think that some creature is answering some and not others. And I do think praying to have a molester stop what they are doing is a worthy prayer to ask and have answered.

Do you feel that some are more worthy than others? Of so what is the cutoff? Or that there are only so many to go around?

What "best" does god know to not help in a child molestation act? What would be a good excuse???


----------



## redwards

bullethead said:


> From JW.org
> 
> Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:
> 
> 
> We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
> We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
> When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
> We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
> We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
> 
> they are a christian denomination.


...yet, they claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel...
source...
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachin...1-1aacc63668df&insight[search_result_index]=0

a better definition would be..."they claim to be a christian denomination"


----------



## bullethead

redwards said:


> ...yet, they claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel...
> source...
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachin...1-1aacc63668df&insight[search_result_index]=0
> 
> a better definition would be..."they claim to be a christian denomination"


40,000 + Denominations and all of their members make that same claim.

How many live up to it?

You and who else?????


----------



## WaltL1

redwards said:


> ...yet, they claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel...
> source...
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachin...1-1aacc63668df&insight[search_result_index]=0
> 
> a better definition would be..."they claim to be a christian denomination"


The problem is.....
for you to prove their interpretation wrong what are you gonna do?
You are going to go to the Bible and use your interpretation to refute their interpretation. And the next fellow is going to use his interpretation to prove your and their interpretation wrong and the next fellow is going to use his interpretation to refute...…..
And round and round you go...….


----------



## Artfuldodger

redwards said:


> ...yet, they claim that Jesus is Michael the archangel...
> source...
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachin...1-1aacc63668df&insight[search_result_index]=0
> 
> a better definition would be..."they claim to be a christian denomination"



Why would that one belief make them only claim to be a Christian denomination? Some denominations believe in Oneness meaning they aren't Trinitarian. We can't all be right. Do we even have to be as long as we believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins?
Oneness believe Trinitarians are as wrong as the JW's.

None of us really know the answer because it hasn't even been revealed yet. Yet we are quick to cast other believers into the pit because they don't see every belief exactly as we do.

There is one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ. 
Jesus said "My Father and your Father, my God and your God."


----------



## Artfuldodger

I hope most of the Protestants realize they came from the Catholic Church. That at one time there was only One Church.
Protestants also believe that this same Church they are now calling a cult established at Nicea the creeds that they themselves follow.

There are some Baptist that don't follow these "creeds of man" as they call them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Spotlite said:


> I could agree with getting away from that. Although I don’t view the whole denomination the way I view a certain church in a denomination. There’s good honest people in all denominations that are really doing everything they know to live  right. Those will find their way.



I agree.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Artfuldodger said:


> I hope most of the Protestants realize they came from the Catholic Church. That at one time there was only One Church.
> .


 
Wrong.  After even a casual reading of Foxes Book of Martyrs most would come to the conclusion there were many groups outside of the Catholic Church that held up protestant beliefs down through the ages.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wrong.  After even a casual reading of Foxes Book of Martyrs most would come to the conclusion there were many groups outside of the Catholic Church that held up protestant beliefs down through the ages.


Cults!!


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> Cults!!



AKA heretics.


----------



## Artfuldodger

SemperFiDawg said:


> Wrong.  After even a casual reading of Foxes Book of Martyrs most would come to the conclusion there were many groups outside of the Catholic Church that held up protestant beliefs down through the ages.



I did say most, perhaps half?
Anyway many of the Protestant Churches that stem from  the protest still believe in what was settled at the Nicene Councils. It's even a part of their own covenants and creeds. The Ecumenical creeds.

There are some Baptist that don't follow these creeds.  I'm sure there are others as well. I should not have said "most." Maybe some.

It's interesting to me how those from the protest can call them a cult when they still follow their creeds. Maybe they see them as becoming a cult and not having always been one.

Even in Protestant Churches where these creeds are not a part of their creed, some Churches still use them in worship. They aren't actually used in every Protestant Church's doctrine.

They also use the same Bible books indexed by those men in Nicea.

I stand corrected.


----------



## redwards

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would that one belief make them only claim to be a Christian denomination? Some denominations believe in Oneness meaning they aren't Trinitarian. We can't all be right. Do we even have to be as long as we believe Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins?
> Oneness believe Trinitarians are as wrong as the JW's.
> 
> None of us really know the answer because it hasn't even been revealed yet. Yet we are quick to cast other believers into the pit because they don't see every belief exactly as we do.
> 
> There is one God, the Father ... and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
> Jesus said "My Father and your Father, my God and your God."



Wasn't trying to imply that the one verse is the reason...was only pointing to the fact that while their beliefs are stated with certain scripture...if one looks on their website and does some searches, they believe Jesus is Michael the archangel...
quoted directly from their website...
"Rather, it is more reasonable to conclude that both names, Jesus and Michael, refer to the same person."
As for my "claiming to be christian" statement...I base that on some of the beliefs of the founder...Charles Taze Russell...
"Unlike so many other false teachers before and after him, Russell did not rely upon visions or other extra-biblical revelation. Rather, he simply interpreted, and misinterpreted, the Bible. While claiming to be a Christian and, in fact, a Christian who was restoring the faith of the New Testament, he denied many key Christian doctrines including eternal punishment, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the existence of the Holy Spirit.

Russell, as with most Adventists, denied the existence of **** as a place where the wicked face God’s wrath. He also held that the soul simply ceases to exist after death." ...
Source of the quote...
https://www.challies.com/articles/the-false-teachers-charles-taze-russell/


----------



## Artfuldodger

redwards said:


> Wasn't trying to imply that the one verse is the reason...was only pointing to the fact that while their beliefs are stated with certain scripture...if one looks on their website and does some searches, they believe Jesus is Michael the archangel...
> quoted directly from their website...
> "Rather, it is more reasonable to conclude that both names, Jesus and Michael, refer to the same person."
> As for my "claiming to be christian" statement...I base that on some of the beliefs of the founder...Charles Taze Russell...
> "Unlike so many other false teachers before and after him, Russell did not rely upon visions or other extra-biblical revelation. Rather, he simply interpreted, and misinterpreted, the Bible. While claiming to be a Christian and, in fact, a Christian who was restoring the faith of the New Testament, he denied many key Christian doctrines including eternal punishment, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the existence of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Russell, as with most Adventists, denied the existence of **** as a place where the wicked face God’s wrath. He also held that the soul simply ceases to exist after death." ...
> Source of the quote...
> https://www.challies.com/articles/the-false-teachers-charles-taze-russell/



Do you really believe one must believe He11 is a place of eternal punishment by fire to receive a call and acceptance from the Father?
If that belief was a prerequisite, why would God even call an individual who believes differently? 
I've always thought it was salvation from eternal death to everlasting life.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Or is it that some things worked out to your benefit and some did not?
> 
> I ask because if you've had multiple prayers answered just for you alone , how is a child that is peril denied an request?
> 
> Frankly, it's my opinion that it is a twisted thought process to think that some creature is answering some and not others. And I do think praying to have a molester stop what they are doing is a worthy prayer to ask and have answered.
> 
> Do you feel


 I`ve had many that were specific and not associated with happen chance.

Who said the child was denied  a request? Praying to have molesters stopped is a worthy prayer, who done it there? Who done what to stop what they know is happening? If you expose you and your family to certain things, who`s fault is it? 

The rest is noted as your opinion.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Especially when his employees are the ones at fault...


Not everyone wearing the suit is an employee though. Just like every Atheist isn't a murderer.............. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-creepy-weird-classmates-latest-a8041161.html


----------



## Spotlite

Artfuldodger said:


> I did say most, perhaps half?
> Anyway many of the Protestant Churches that stem from  the protest still believe in what was settled at the Nicene Councils. It's even a part of their own covenants and creeds. The Ecumenical creeds.
> 
> There are some Baptist that don't follow these creeds.  I'm sure there are others as well. I should not have said "most." Maybe some.


There`s many that don't follow those creeds and have no ties to the catholic church regardless of what the Wikipedia says. A lot of stuff that some of those research groups have to say are not even close to what happens in other denominations and what they believe in.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Not everyone wearing the suit is an employee though. Just like every Atheist isn't a murderer..............
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-creepy-weird-classmates-latest-a8041161.html


They might not act like employees, but after you have completed the process to become a priest, you are an employee. 

Apples and oranges to your atheist murderer analogy.
You can compare and athiest  to a christian. You can compare them if they do something and declare it was done in the name of their beliefs on non beliefs. Everyone identifies with some sort of beliefs, but it doesn't  always play into their actions or things that happen to them.
Like if someone gets run over and killed while jogging and were of Catholic faith. They didnt get run over because they were catholic...that is just a side note UNLESS the one in the car said that he specifically ran them over because of their religion.

But a member of clergy IS a representative of god. And once ordained they are the representative.  And if they are diddling kids IN a Church and wearing the cloth...you cannot say that they are not an employee or representative. And even if it happening in "gods house" by no matter who....god shouod be on watch.

Passing the buck to parents is a poor excuse.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> They might not act like employees, but after you have completed the process to become a priest, you are an employee.
> 
> Apples and oranges to your atheist murderer analogy.
> You can compare and athiest  to a christian. You can compare them if they do something and declare it was done in the name of their beliefs on non beliefs. Everyone identifies with some sort of beliefs, but it doesn't  always play into their actions or things that happen to them.
> Like if someone gets run over and killed while jogging and were of Catholic faith. They didnt get run over because they were catholic...that is just a side note UNLESS the one in the car said that he specifically ran them over because of their religion.
> 
> But a member of clergy IS a representative of god. And once ordained they are the representative.  And if they are diddling kids IN a Church and wearing the cloth...you cannot say that they are not an employee or representative. And even if it happening in "gods house" by no matter who....god shouod be on watch.
> 
> Passing the buck to parents is a poor excuse.


Point is anyone can get killed or hurt at any time. That in no way implies that God does not exist.  

Completing anything does`nt make you anything other than self called unless God calls you to preach. If you think being a member of the clergy and ordained makes a person a man of God, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I will just give you, and a couple of jack leg want a bees I would love to introduce you to. One in particular became a "man of God" so he could make extra money on funerals.

Remember Jim Jones???????? Better check them out a little deeper before you follow them is all I am saying.  3 John 1 vs 11.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Point is anyone can get killed or hurt at any time. That in no way implies that God does not exist.
> 
> Completing anything does`nt make you anything other than self called unless God calls you to preach. If you think being a member of the clergy and ordained makes a person a man of God, I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I will just give you, and a couple of jack leg want a bees I would love to introduce you to. One in particular became a "man of God" so he could make extra money on funerals.
> 
> Remember Jim Jones???????? Better check them out a little deeper before you follow them is all I am saying.  3 John 1 vs 11.


Jim Jones was self proclaimed. He didn't attend the seminary and he wasn't ordained by the church.
You can try to distance your god from these priests and those priests from your god, but you are not doing a good job. If what you say is true about your god being involved in religion and in every other aspect of life, then he dropped the ball repeatedly on these molestations from priests. You know he knows about it, its happening in his buildings, and he does nothing. Won't or can't are the only two reasons.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Jim Jones was self proclaimed. He didn't attend the seminary and he wasn't ordained by the church.
> You can try to distance your god from these priests and those priests from your god, but you are not doing a good job. If what you say is true about your god being involved in religion and in every other aspect of life, then he dropped the ball repeatedly on these molestations from priests. You know he knows about it, its happening in his buildings, and he does nothing. Won't or can't are the only two reasons.



Epicurus got it right a long time ago:

_“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_


*


----------



## WaltL1

ky55 said:


> Epicurus got it right a long time ago:
> 
> _“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_
> 
> 
> *


To us that's ^ really hard to get around.
To believers its not even a speed bump.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Jim Jones was self proclaimed. He didn't attend the seminary and he wasn't ordained by the church.
> You can try to distance your god from these priests and those priests from your god, but you are not doing a good job. If what you say is true about your god being involved in religion and in every other aspect of life, then he dropped the ball repeatedly on these molestations from priests. You know he knows about it, its happening in his buildings, and he does nothing. Won't or can't are the only two reasons.


As I said before, completing that seminary and being ordained doesn’t make a man God called.

It’s been hashed out many times, everything claiming to be something doesn’t make it that.

The church failed many times covering this up and now it’s God’s fault?


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> Epicurus got it right a long time ago:
> 
> _“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_
> 
> 
> *


The problem isn’t God. Willing and able is not the same as forcing. What’s ironic is so many claim to have a solid understanding about how all of this works and use it to support their non belief, yet they don’t .


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> As I said before, completing that seminary and being ordained doesn’t make a man God called.
> 
> It’s been hashed out many times, everything claiming to be something doesn’t make it that.
> 
> The church failed many times covering this up and now it’s God’s fault?


I think Bullet's point isn't that its "God's fault"
Christians, many not all  , give God credit for saving a life in a car crash etc but NEVER assign blame to God for not saving someone in a car crash etc.
If one is true the other is true also.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> I think Bullet's point isn't that its "God's fault"
> Christians, many not all  , give God credit for saving a life in a car crash etc but NEVER assign blame to God for not saving someone in a car crash etc.
> If one is true the other is true also.



I gave an example of that on here awhile back about a cousin whose abdominal pain was misdiagnosed as a hernia for several months, and it turned out to be colon cancer. 
After the usual surgery and chemo he’s been cancer free for a year. 

He says the lord “led” him to a good surgeon, but he didn’t mention who led him to the doc who told him he had a hernia and failed to diagnose the cancer. 

Please, give me a break.


----------



## WaltL1

ky55 said:


> I gave an example of that on here awhile back about a cousin whose abdominal pain was misdiagnosed as a hernia for several months, and it turned out to be colon cancer.
> After the usual surgery and chemo he’s been cancer free for a year.
> 
> He says the lord “led” him to a good surgeon, but he didn’t mention who led him to the doc who told him he had a hernia and failed to diagnose the cancer.
> 
> Please, give me a break.


For a believer faith beats logic every time.


----------



## hummerpoo

ky55 said:


> Epicurus got it right a long time ago:
> 
> _“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_
> 
> 
> *


We are all familiar with the woman, and the man, whose desire and intent was to gain a God-like knowledge of good and evil; and we know how that turned out.


----------



## ky55

hummerpoo said:


> We are all familiar with the woman, and the man, whose desire and intent was to gain a God-like knowledge of good and evil; and we know how that turned out.



Yes, if you’re talking about Adam and Eve most of us are familiar with that story. 
Most of us also know that when the tortoise and the hare had a race the tortoise won, Jack chopped down the beanstalk and killed the giant, and Zeus threw down lightning bolts from the sky. 

*


----------



## hummerpoo

ky55 said:


> Yes, if you’re talking about Adam and Eve most of us are familiar with that story.
> Most of us also know that when the tortoise and the hare had a race the tortoise won, Jack chopped down the beanstalk and killed the giant, and Zeus threw down lightning bolts from the sky.
> 
> *


And Rocky and Bullwinkle is written for children under 5 years of age.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I think Bullet's point isn't that its "God's fault"
> Christians, many not all  , give God credit for saving a life in a car crash etc but NEVER assign blame to God for not saving someone in a car crash etc.
> If one is true the other is true also.


I wouldn’t agree with that philosophy.

If we are all exposed (Christian and non Christian) to the things of this world, the blame is a crutch.

Sure we give credit, (good things are from God) and sure we ask why not. (Accepting his Will even if we don’t understand it) I wished I knew why my Dad had to pass on at an early age, but that’s not enough to make me call it quits or blame God. Dad didn’t take care of his health just right either. 

In this particular case how do we know it’s not Mary”s fault?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> For a believer faith beats logic every time.


When you view it from our position and the medical / scientific world has no answer, what other logical explanation is there?

If it’s just happen chance, why did it happen to the praying man and not the other that wasn’t praying?

And if it’s just happen chance, why does it continue to keep happening in other areas of the praying mans life?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> As I said before, completing that seminary and being ordained doesn’t make a man God called.
> 
> It’s been hashed out many times, everything claiming to be something doesn’t make it that.
> 
> The church failed many times covering this up and now it’s God’s fault?


Not now, always been. It could have been prevented. Couldn't or Wouldn't.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I think Bullet's point isn't that its "God's fault"
> Christians, many not all  , give God credit for saving a life in a car crash etc but NEVER assign blame to God for not saving someone in a car crash etc.
> If one is true the other is true also.


Spot On Walt.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> We are all familiar with the woman, and the man, whose desire and intent was to gain a God-like knowledge of good and evil; and we know how that turned out.


Some stories are true and others are not. But regarding the story above nobody knows anything for sure.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Some stories are true and others are not. But regarding the story above nobody knows anything for sure.


Blessed indeed is the man who knows his own heart.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Not now, always been. It could have been prevented. Couldn't or Wouldn't.


Yes it could have been prevented, all they had to do was stop hiding it, a long time ago. This a people / organization problem, not a God or even a Christian problem.  

PS - we are talking about an organization that talks / prays / etc. to Mary and cant seem to find God. 

Why are you focused on "no God" instead the on-going problem that continues to grow in a certain organization? The "sad case" about innocent kids is almost irrelevant for some reason because an agenda has to be pushed. What about all the good that churches do for innocent kids?


----------



## ky55

hummerpoo said:


> And Rocky and Bullwinkle is written for children under 5 years of age.



Yeah, and by the time they turn 6 most of them have realized it’s just a cartoon. 
Some spend the rest of their lives believing in floating zoos and dead folks walking around. 

*


----------



## ky55

Spotlite said:


> What about all the good that churches do for innocent kids?



What “good” would these churches do for innocent kids without their main agenda of spreading the “word”?
Isn’t that the mission of missionaries?
The Mormon Church has a net worth of 40 billion dollars. 
The net worth of the Catholic Church is anybody’s guess. 
Jesse Duplantis has a net worth of 50 million dollars and he needs 54 million dollars for his THIRD personal jet. 

This stuff would be laughable if we could just ignore the suffering of the “innocent kids”.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yes it could have been prevented, all they had to do was stop hiding it, a long time ago. This a people / organization problem, not a God or even a Christian problem.
> 
> PS - we are talking about an organization that talks / prays / etc. to Mary and cant seem to find God.
> 
> Why are you focused on "no God" instead the on-going problem that continues to grow in a certain organization? The "sad case" about innocent kids is almost irrelevant for some reason because an agenda has to be pushed. What about all the good that churches do for innocent kids?



I am not focused on any God.

I am trying to look at it through the eyes of a believer who thinks that a god makes it a point to step in and prevent accidents, injuries, diseases, "bad" things from happening to "his" children. These boards are full of those stories so for the sake of this conversation I am going to act as if they are true. I then wonder if god heard the pleas of the molested children who were being molested by representatives of that god. And if he did, why did he not also step in and change the outcome.

You keep passing the buck.
In one sentence you say well it's the parents fault. The parents should/could have prevented these things.
But They Did Not.
They did not the same as You (general term that includes every person who says god helped them) did nothing to prevent your near death experience(could have stayed home from work that day), or your car accident that you should have died in  (could have taken the bus), or your incurable disease, or tumor (you could have not smoked/drank/put lead sinkers in your mouth while fishing).

The point is that in your case and the case of these kids is that many things could have been done and should have been done by humans but it wasn't. All systems failed which led to the incident(s) happening.
Now all we have as a last resort is God.
In the case of the unsurvivable car accident where you should be dead, God stepped in and changed the outcome.
In the case where 4 priests made a child strip naked and stand in front of the cross like Jesus(true incident) to take pics of him..God did nothing.

When you say a tumor shrunk and disappeared that baffled the Docs, you say God did it.
But where was God when some young child was made to perform acts on a priest?

Or when you fell off a 40ft high roof and didnt break a bone...Praise be to our Lord who guided my fall and landing.
Yet, when a child was being fondled by a man of the cloth...where was that same Lord?

You can keep on saying that they were not "true" priests or "true" men of the cloth, or not "real" representatives of god, but in fact yes they were. They were in the position that they were in which garners a lot of trust BECAUSE they were Priests. They had access to Gods house. They spoke in his name. They married people in the eyes of God.
You cannot seriously try to pass off that your God did nothing because these guys were fakes. It happened in his house, right in front of his eyes, and in many of the cases in his name. He Did NOTHING.

The whole time the all powerful and all knowledgeable god knew that this was happening and watching it, but instead he decided to let a  request go through for a "more worthy?" believer or saved some "worthy" screwball that was going 135mph on his Hayabusa and did a lid skid for 200yds down the highway...

Please Spotlite, if your God exists in the manner that you claim, then your excuses are invalid.


And if you honestly think that praying to Mary negates any claim a Catholic has to the same God you worship, I'll find some incidents of non catholic clergy that have done the same thing. God was a no show there too.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Yes it could have been prevented, all they had to do was stop hiding it, a long time ago. This a people / organization problem, not a God or even a Christian problem.
> 
> PS - we are talking about an organization that talks / prays / etc. to Mary and cant seem to find God.
> 
> Why are you focused on "no God" instead the on-going problem that continues to grow in a certain organization? The "sad case" about innocent kids is almost irrelevant for some reason because an agenda has to be pushed. What about all the good that churches do for innocent kids?


I will say this -
Even if the big picture is that its being done to promote the Christian agenda I would rather see the church do it than nobody do it.
Get the kids the help they need (whatever that may be) and lets argue about "why it was done" later.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> When you view it from our position and the medical / scientific world has no answer, what other logical explanation is there?
> 
> If it’s just happen chance, why did it happen to the praying man and not the other that wasn’t praying?
> 
> And if it’s just happen chance, why does it continue to keep happening in other areas of the praying mans life?


"God did it" is not a logical explanation.
"God did it" is what a believer says because there is no glory in "I dont know".


----------



## hummerpoo

hummerpoo said:


> And Rocky and Bullwinkle is written for children under 5 years of age.



               ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑   sarcasm   ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑




ky55 said:


> Yeah, and by the time they turn 6 most of them have realized it’s just a cartoon.
> Some spend the rest of their lives believing in floating zoos and dead folks walking around.
> 
> *


Sorry guys; I thought everybody had realized that a large portion of the humorous content of Rocky and Bullwinkle is too sophisticated for children and had long since recognized it as more than the cute characters.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑   sarcasm   ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> 
> Sorry guys; I thought everybody had realized that a large portion of the humorous content of Rocky and Bullwinkle is too sophisticated for children and had long since recognized it as more than the cute characters.



I remember the Cold War satire! One of my favorite shows growing up. I also like Mr. Peabody and Sherman as well.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> For a believer faith beats logic every time.



True to a point, but maybe a bit of a different perspective would help.  I would say a believer's faith in a known, loving, God, trumps their faith in a not totally known "logic".    To put it in simple terms, When God and logic seem to contradict, I trust in the goodness of God, despite the things I don't understand, as opposed to logic which is  based on what we SEEM to understand.  

Logic is based on available knowledge and understanding of how our environment works, therefore if one acknowledges a spiritual dimension, logic could only function with regards to it's workings if it was known also.  Since it's not, I don't expect logic to be perfect.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> True to a point, but maybe a bit of a different perspective would help.  I would say a believer's faith in a known, loving, God, trumps their faith in a not totally known "logic".    To put it in simple terms, When God and logic seem to contradict, I trust in the goodness of God, despite the things I don't understand, as opposed to logic which is  based on what we SEEM to understand.
> 
> Logic is based on available knowledge and understanding of how our environment works, therefore if one acknowledges a spiritual dimension, logic could only function with regards to it's workings if it was known also.  Since it's not, I don't expect logic to be perfect.


That is a very good explanation.

I think what I and others have a problem with is that so many believers rely on faith over logic. Many times it is not a problem until faith leads to improper or no medical treatment, and all the different faiths in all the different gods where that faith justifies the killing in the name of those gods.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> True to a point, but maybe a bit of a different perspective would help.  I would say a believer's faith in a known, loving, God, trumps their faith in a not totally known "logic".    To put it in simple terms, When God and logic seem to contradict, I trust in the goodness of God, despite the things I don't understand, as opposed to logic which is  based on what we SEEM to understand.
> 
> Logic is based on available knowledge and understanding of how our environment works, therefore if one acknowledges a spiritual dimension, logic could only function with regards to it's workings if it was known also.  Since it's not, I don't expect logic to be perfect.


Yes it is a fact logic is based on what we know/understand. No argument there.
But you cant say "there is no other answer so its logical to believe God did it".
"I don't know" is then the logical answer.
"God did it" is based on faith/belief not logic.


----------



## ambush80

SemperFiDawg said:


> True to a point, but maybe a bit of a different perspective would help.  I would say a believer's faith in a known, loving, God, trumps their faith in a not totally known "logic".    To put it in simple terms, When God and logic seem to contradict, I trust in the goodness of God, despite the things I don't understand, as opposed to logic which is  based on what we SEEM to understand.
> 
> Logic is based on available knowledge and understanding of how our environment works, therefore if one acknowledges a spiritual dimension, logic could only function with regards to it's workings if it was known also.  Since it's not, I don't expect logic to be perfect.



Two points:

1. When you say "known" do you realize that you're talking about a subjective experience? It's not the same as saying "I _know_ that rocks fall down" because anyone can go and test it themselves.  It's impossible for anyone to _know_ it the same way as you and therefore isn't worth much to anyone else.

2. If you acknowledge a spiritual dimension that leaves all manner of things possible, not just the one's you personally believe in and you can't say with any authority which claims about the spiritual world are false and which are true.




bullethead said:


> That is a very good explanation.
> 
> I think what I and others have a problem with is that so many believers rely on faith over logic. Many times it is not a problem until faith leads to improper or no medical treatment, and all the different faiths in all the different gods where that faith justifies the killing in the name of those gods.



Revelation is a problem.  It's neither provable or disprovable.   That makes it useless for anyone else unless you can get them to believe that you have the proper _REAL _revelation_.  _I don't like people to use revelation as a means to determine truth about anything, particularly "here and now" matters, when there are much better systems for that.

Imagine someone prays and has a revelation the they should vote for Trump.....or Hillary.  It seems like a bad way to make decisions.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> Imagine someone prays and has a revelation the they should vote for Trump.....or Hillary.  It seems like a bad way to make decisions.



I'm not so sure about this one.  The other option seems to be to believe what the candidate says, or believe what someone else, who pretends to read the heart/mind of the candidate, in attributing motivation to the candidate having made the statement.  Kinda makes prayer response look like a viable option, regardless of your beliefs.  Actually, that makes a coin toss look pretty good.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> I'm not so sure about this one.  The other option seems to be to believe what the candidate says, or believe what someone else, who pretends to read the heart/mind of the candidate, in attributing motivation to the candidate having made the statement.  Kinda makes prayer response look like a viable option, regardless of your beliefs.  Actually, that makes a coin toss look pretty good.




No sir.  You go with what you can find out.  You find all the sources, especially ones you don't agree with and vett them against the REALITY that you can verify.  You can use past behavior.  It's not a coin toss at all.  
A coin toss is better than revelation.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> No sir.  You go with what you can find out.  You find all the sources, especially ones you don't agree with and vett them against the REALITY that you can verify.  You can use past behavior.  It's not a coin toss at all.
> A coin toss is better than revelation.



Thank you, but no thanks.  I have 50 yrs. experience with that technique; I have settled on the coin toss for most occasions.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I'm not so sure about this one.  The other option seems to be to believe what the candidate says, or believe what someone else, who pretends to read the heart/mind of the candidate, in attributing motivation to the candidate having made the statement.  Kinda makes prayer response look like a viable option, regardless of your beliefs.  Actually, that makes a coin toss look pretty good.


Most candidates have voting records, pre-established positions on topics etc.
Then you gotta pray that they don't completely flip flop 
For me the last resort is to listen to what they say or what somebody else says about them.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Most candidates have voting records, pre-established positions on topics etc.
> Then you gotta pray that they don't completely flip flop
> For me the last resort is to listen to what they say or what somebody else says about them.



That's odd.  Why wouldn't you listen to what someone that knows them well says about them, particularly someone that doesn't agree with them?


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Thank you, but no thanks.  I have 50 yrs. experience with that technique; I have settled on the coin toss for most occasions.




Good.  I wish more people would do that instead of relying on revelation.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> That's odd.  Why wouldn't you listen to what someone that knows them well says about them, particularly someone that doesn't agree with them?


Documented voting records, past positions on topics don't lie.
People for stretch the truth, people against stretch the truth.
Same reason I don't go to Atheist sites to learn about Christians and vice versa.
My mother will tell you Im a great guy, my ex will tell you Im the spawn of the devil.
The truth is somewhere in the middle


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Documented voting records, past positions on topics don't lie.
> People for stretch the truth, people against stretch the truth.
> Same reason I don't go to Atheist sites to learn about Christians and vice versa.
> My mother will tell you Im a great guy, my ex will tell you Im the spawn of the devil.
> The truth is somewhere in the middle



Many atheists know more about the Bible and religions in general that die hard adherents.  How many Christians know what my sig line is about?

My point is that I would get some truth about who you are from both of them, which is useful information.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> Good.  I wish more people would do that instead of relying on revelation.


The "casting of lots" is well established.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Many atheists know more about the Bible and religions in general that die hard adherents.  How many Christians know what my sig line is about?
> 
> My point is that I would get some truth about who you are from both of them, which is useful information.


Oh I agree it can be useful but if you cant verify it in some way, you are basically just picking who you want to believe or going with the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> The "casting of lots" is well established.




Can you make a case that it's inferior to revelation as a way to inform action?  I go after you.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Oh I agree it can be useful but if you cant verify it in some way, you are basically just picking who you want to believe or going with the truth is somewhere in the middle.




If your mom says you love dogs and your ex wife says you are a dog hating sadist and I find out that you have a criminal record for repeated dog abuse then I have a clearer picture of who you are than without any of that information. This thread seems to be about knowledge; how we know what those parents were thinking and how people gather knowledge about claims other people make.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> Can you make a case that it's inferior to revelation as a way to inform action?  I go after you.



Wouldn't it be presumptuous of me to pronounce judgment on God's providence?  I think it would be.


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> Wouldn't it be presumptuous of me to pronounce judgment on God's providence?  I think it would be.



It would.  That's why Bullethead's observation of believers who do just that, claim that they understand the un-understandable, is spot on.  You claiming "God wouldn't do that" is equally groundless as someone who says "God does it like this".

Bullet seems to want people who claim that everything God does is good and loving to admit that when God ignores the pleas from molested children that He is being good and loving then, also.  "When God allows priests to molest children He is being good and loving."  Bullet is right to expect people to use that exact language.   Notice how those who believe in the ultimate sovereignty of God don't try to argue that point.

The common apologist argument is "We don't know what his ultimate plan was for their suffering".  The screwy part is "But I believe that it was for a good reason".  Maybe God designed the world without reason.  One could adopt that stance and have the world make perfect sense.  They would be no more prone to error than one who said the opposite.  It seems like a better representation of facts on the ground. If you want to go where the evidence leads it will lead you to "There's no _apparent_ reason for that type of suffering".


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> Can you make a case that it's inferior to revelation as a way to inform action?  I go after you.





hummerpoo said:


> Wouldn't it be presumptuous of me to pronounce judgment on God's providence?  I think it would be.



I was hoping that you might make a case for the value of revelation.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> If your mom says you love dogs and your ex wife says you are a dog hating sadist and I find out that you have a criminal record for repeated dog abuse then I have a clearer picture of who you are than without any of that information. This thread seems to be about knowledge; how we know what those parents were thinking and how people gather knowledge about claims other people make.


My criminal record is a documented record just like a candidate's voting record.
With it you don't need anybody else's opinion for or against me.
Of course that's assuming you were thorough enough to find it without anybody pointing you in that direction.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> My criminal record is a documented record just like a candidate's voting record.
> With it you don't need anybody else's opinion for or against me.
> Of course that's assuming you were thorough enough to find it without anybody pointing you in that direction.



Yup.  That kind of documentation is informative, much less so hearsay.  It's more important to judge what people do than what they say.  But when someone does something and they give you a reason why they did it, you can evaluate the reasons they give.  If they say that their belief system effected their actions then it's time to assess their belief system.  Their reasons might indicate a problem not just with them but perhaps a problem with their belief system.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Yup.  That kind of documentation is informative, much less so hearsay.  It's more important to judge what people do than what they say.  But when someone does something and they give you a reason why they did it, you can evaluate the reasons they give.  If they say that their belief system effected their actions then it's important to assess their belief system.  Their reasons might indicate a problem not just with them but perhaps a problem with their belief system.


Agreed but let me wrangle you back in -
hummer specified candidates, believing them or believing what someone says about them. With documented voting records and/or past history on issues you don't have to believe or disbelieve anybody. Those records don't lie or stretch the truth or hide anything or put the spotlight on anything. Humans do and are therefore my last resort.


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> It would.  That's why Bullethead's observation of believers who do just that, claim that they understand the un-understandable, is spot on.  You claiming "God wouldn't do that" is equally groundless as someone who says "God does it like this".



That's o.k. as a general statement, but there are exceptions on both the positive and negative side of the statement; the discussion of which I don't believe would benefit anyone, at this time and place.



> Bullet seems to want people who claim that everything God does is good and loving to admit that when God ignores the pleas from molested children that He is being good and loving then, also.  "When God allows priests to molest children He is being good and loving."  Bullet is right to expect people to use that exact language.   Notice how those who believe in the ultimate sovereignty of God don't try to argue that point.
> 
> The common apologist argument is "We don't know what his ultimate plan was for their suffering".  The screwy part is "But I believe that it was for a good reason".  Maybe God designed the world without reason.  One could adopt that stance and have the world make perfect sense.  They would be no more prone to error than one who said the opposite.  It seems like a better representation of facts on the ground. If you want to go where the evidence leads it will lead you to "There's no _apparent_ reason for that type of suffering".



I do believe that God is good; but I don't claim to understand all that is good; and I believe that God is love, but I don't claim to understand all that is loving.

I find it both funny (ha, ha) and sad that, in however many posts, we have run the circle back to my first entry in the conversation.  EpIcurus made his multiple declarations based on his presumption that his knowledge was at least equal to God's knowledge.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> What “good” would these churches do for innocent kids without their main agenda of spreading the “word”?
> Isn’t that the mission of missionaries?
> The Mormon Church has a net worth of 40 billion dollars.
> The net worth of the Catholic Church is anybody’s guess.
> Jesse Duplantis has a net worth of 50 million dollars and he needs 54 million dollars for his THIRD personal jet.
> 
> This stuff would be laughable if we could just ignore the suffering of the “innocent kids”.


The net worth is irrelevant.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I am not focused on any God.
> 
> I am trying to look at it through the eyes of a believer who thinks that a god makes it a point to step in and prevent accidents, injuries, diseases, "bad" things from happening to "his" children. These boards are full of those stories so for the sake of this conversation I am going to act as if they are true. I then wonder if god heard the pleas of the molested children who were being molested by representatives of that god. And if he did, why did he not also step in and change the outcome.
> 
> You keep passing the buck.
> In one sentence you say well it's the parents fault. The parents should/could have prevented these things.
> But They Did Not.
> They did not the same as You (general term that includes every person who says god helped them) did nothing to prevent your near death experience(could have stayed home from work that day), or your car accident that you should have died in  (could have taken the bus), or your incurable disease, or tumor (you could have not smoked/drank/put lead sinkers in your mouth while fishing).
> 
> The point is that in your case and the case of these kids is that many things could have been done and should have been done by humans but it wasn't. All systems failed which led to the incident(s) happening.
> Now all we have as a last resort is God.
> In the case of the unsurvivable car accident where you should be dead, God stepped in and changed the outcome.
> In the case where 4 priests made a child strip naked and stand in front of the cross like Jesus(true incident) to take pics of him..God did nothing.
> 
> When you say a tumor shrunk and disappeared that baffled the Docs, you say God did it.
> But where was God when some young child was made to perform acts on a priest?
> 
> Or when you fell off a 40ft high roof and didnt break a bone...Praise be to our Lord who guided my fall and landing.
> Yet, when a child was being fondled by a man of the cloth...where was that same Lord?
> 
> You can keep on saying that they were not "true" priests or "true" men of the cloth, or not "real" representatives of god, but in fact yes they were. They were in the position that they were in which garners a lot of trust BECAUSE they were Priests. They had access to Gods house. They spoke in his name. They married people in the eyes of God.
> You cannot seriously try to pass off that your God did nothing because these guys were fakes. It happened in his house, right in front of his eyes, and in many of the cases in his name. He Did NOTHING.
> 
> The whole time the all powerful and all knowledgeable god knew that this was happening and watching it, but instead he decided to let a  request go through for a "more worthy?" believer or saved some "worthy" screwball that was going 135mph on his Hayabusa and did a lid skid for 200yds down the highway...
> 
> Please Spotlite, if your God exists in the manner that you claim, then your excuses are invalid.
> 
> 
> And if you honestly think that praying to Mary negates any claim a Catholic has to the same God you worship, I'll find some incidents of non catholic clergy that have done the same thing. God was a no show there too.


Well, he hasn’t been a no show for me


----------



## hummerpoo

ambush80 said:


> I was hoping that you might make a case for the value of revelation.


My mind goes immediately to four "types" of divine revelation, which are best discussed and understood in a specific order, and your resent statements refer to the last.  Although I'm sure I would benefit from the discussion, and there is a real possibility that many would, I'm just not up to that.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> "God did it" is not a logical explanation.
> "God did it" is what a believer says because there is no glory in "I dont know".


It’s logical when you're a believer, and you’re a praying for it. 

Not knowing is ok, it works for science and everyone else.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I am not focused on any God.
> 
> I am trying to look at it through the eyes of a believer............You can keep on saying that they were not "true" priests or "true" men of the cloth, or not "real" representatives of god, but in fact yes they were.
> Please Spotlite, if your God exists in the manner that you claim, then your excuses are invalid.


Ok fair enough, I read you wrong. 

Scripture tells us that (not an exact quote) everyone that says Lord shall enter in, they’ve cast out demons in his name. He says depart he never knew them.

So, again I stand by my original position that men that do these things are not men of God no matter what church ordained them or programs / seminarys they’ve completed. If you looked at it through the eyes of the believer, you’d know that and you’d know that maybe he did step in, maybe it getting so much attention now will keep thousands of other children from being abused. 


Regardless of who gets credit, I hope the pervs are stopped. 

As far as if God is real or isn’t, I realize you looked for him and didn’t find him. That in no way means I didn’t find him. Seriously think about that, if you don’t know what it is that I found, how could you possibly know what it’s not? If you’re looking for some lightning strike of proof on your terms only........


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Agreed but let me wrangle you back in -
> hummer specified candidates, believing them or believing what someone says about them. With documented voting records and/or past history on issues you don't have to believe or disbelieve anybody. Those records don't lie or stretch the truth or hide anything or put the spotlight on anything. Humans do and are therefore my last resort.




I dunno, man.  If you introduced me to someone and you told me he was a great guy and that you grew up with him I would take your word as a starting point.


----------



## Israel

Walt, I agree...it's a rare (impossible for man?) thing to see what glory may be in that place of "I do not know".
Yet, I see Jesus Christ willing to openly occupy that place.
Not denying  His knowing much about the appearing of the end, the very specific of the "when", when asked, he openly confessed to not knowing.

The wisdom of this I begin to glimpse and apprehend, in both His humble appearance in love of truth and loathe of lying...but His equal contentment in being settled that a thing known, even if not by Him, would not diminish Him.

(The things he has told me then...about that time, to me become all the more of established import in the light of His honor to truth. Even to the saying of "I do not know". Specifically...to discover somehow the "being ready" for what will take place precisely at the time I do not expect. The total incapacity/ability of self to this preparedness...to "be ready" for what will come, not just unexpectedly, but at the presise time of its non-expectation, leaves me searching for another to do, and be...what I manifestly cannot)

We sometimes say to one another, when a subtlety is discerned "I see what you did there". But this is all of no subtlety to me now...(even if it be to no other...yet) it is the place of all occupation, and has been of all time I have had knowing. I am searching for a person "to be", and with me, in this little plot of seeming isolated earth. If I too tightly hold uniqueness, I forfeit all fellowship. If I admit to all commonness of self, something else happens.

I have a promise if none receive it. Man can come out of solitary confinement...even and especially those who withstand its knowing in fleeting company of other things treasured _inside_. Every man is seeking a face of unequivocal reception. Even in his darkest knowings of himself.

Glimpses press me on.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I'm not so sure about this one.  The other option seems to be to believe what the candidate says, or believe what someone else, who pretends to read the heart/mind of the candidate, in attributing motivation to the candidate having made the statement.  Kinda makes prayer response look like a viable option, regardless of your beliefs.  Actually, that makes a coin toss look pretty good.


Research, Homework, Educated decision.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Well, he hasn’t been a no show for me


Exactly. Which furthers my point.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It’s logical when you're a believer, and you’re a praying for it.
> 
> Not knowing is ok, it works for science and everyone else.


That is a great example of what Trump and Giuliani were meaning when they said that "The truth isn't always the truth"


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok fair enough, I read you wrong.
> 
> Scripture tells us that (not an exact quote) everyone that says Lord shall enter in, they’ve cast out demons in his name. He says depart he never knew them.
> 
> So, again I stand by my original position that men that do these things are not men of God no matter what church ordained them or programs / seminarys they’ve completed. If you looked at it through the eyes of the believer, you’d know that and you’d know that maybe he did step in, maybe it getting so much attention now will keep thousands of other children from being abused.
> 
> 
> Regardless of who gets credit, I hope the pervs are stopped.
> 
> As far as if God is real or isn’t, I realize you looked for him and didn’t find him. That in no way means I didn’t find him. Seriously think about that, if you don’t know what it is that I found, how could you possibly know what it’s not? If you’re looking for some lightning strike of proof on your terms only........


It would seem that the victims and families of victims had faith enough to believe that these men were men of God and through God trusted these priests.
You and I do not know if your God stepped in, another God stepped in or if these thing went on for so long until the right conditions allowed for it all to come to light.
Im betting on the last one.
And Id bet the gun collection that it is still going on and will go on by priests, reverends, deacons, rabbi's, satanists, uncles,dads, brothers, cousins, moms, aunts, sisters,  neighbors and every other one you can think of.
God isn't and hasn't done a thing to stop it before it happened, stop it while it is happening or prevent it from ever happening again. 
Please don't insult the victims by saying that it was allowed to happen to them so they can be examples.
If from this day forward molestation is wiped out...I'll be in Church daily.  
What are the odds that you think God used these kids as examples to end molestations, and how sure are you it will work?

If what you say in you last paragraph was Unique to only believers of God/Jesus I'd be more likely to say that you were onto something. Your experience, others like it,  and others that are much different are told all over the world by believers of ALL religions. You have the same attitide towards those others as I do, I just add one more God/experience to the list.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> If what you say in you last paragraph was Unique to only believers of God/Jesus I'd be more likely to say that you were onto something. Your experience, others like it,  and others that are much different are told all over the world by believers of ALL religions. You have the same attitide towards those others as I do, I just add one more God/experience to the list.


 A lot of religions believe in the same God, they may call him by a different name.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> That is a great example of what Trump and Giuliani were meaning when they said that "The truth isn't always the truth"


Men’s truth maybe.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Exactly. Which furthers my point.


If you’re point is him being a no show, it really doesn’t further that.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> A lot of religions believe in the same God, they may call him by a different name.


A few do, but not all. Again you cherry pick so it makes sense to you while avoiding the elephant in the room.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> It’s logical when you're a believer, and you’re a praying for it.
> 
> Not knowing is ok, it works for science and everyone else.



"I don't know" certainly can work for a believer. All it requires is a high degree of confidence in your beliefs. "I don't know but I believe".
You are called a believer because you believe. You are not called a knower because.....


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Walt, I agree...it's a rare (impossible for man?) thing to see what glory may be in that place of "I do not know".
> Yet, I see Jesus Christ willing to openly occupy that place.
> Not denying  His knowing much about the appearing of the end, the very specific of the "when", when asked, he openly confessed to not knowing.
> 
> The wisdom of this I begin to glimpse and apprehend, in both His humble appearance in love of truth and loathe of lying...but His equal contentment in being settled that a thing known, even if not by Him, would not diminish Him.
> 
> (The things he has told me then...about that time, to me become all the more of established import in the light of His honor to truth. Even to the saying of "I do not know". Specifically...to discover somehow the "being ready" for what will take place precisely at the time I do not expect. The total incapacity/ability of self to this preparedness...to "be ready" for what will come, not just unexpectedly, but at the presise time of its non-expectation, leaves me searching for another to do, and be...what I manifestly cannot)
> 
> We sometimes say to one another, when a subtlety is discerned "I see what you did there". But this is all of no subtlety to me now...(even if it be to no other...yet) it is the place of all occupation, and has been of all time I have had knowing. I am searching for a person "to be", and with me, in this little plot of seeming isolated earth. If I too tightly hold uniqueness, I forfeit all fellowship. If I admit to all commonness of self, something else happens.
> 
> I have a promise if none receive it. Man can come out of solitary confinement...even and especially those who withstand its knowing in fleeting company of other things treasured _inside_. Every man is seeking a face of unequivocal reception. Even in his darkest knowings of himself.
> 
> Glimpses press me on.




My imagination can fill the place of "I don't know" with way better things than Jesus, even a better version of Jesus.  I could vastly improve the story of the Bible in 5 minutes.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Men’s truth maybe.


Mens truth definitely. That's all there is.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If you’re point is him being a no show, it really doesn’t further that.


He showed for you, not for them.
My EXACT point. You admitting it furthered it.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> My imagination can fill the place of "I don't know" with way better things than Jesus, even a better version of Jesus.  I could vastly improve the story of the Bible in 5 minutes.


Most can, most do. Non Believer and Believer alike.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Walt, I agree...it's a rare (impossible for man?) thing to see what glory may be in that place of "I do not know".
> Yet, I see Jesus Christ willing to openly occupy that place.
> Not denying  His knowing much about the appearing of the end, the very specific of the "when", when asked, he openly confessed to not knowing.
> 
> The wisdom of this I begin to glimpse and apprehend, in both His humble appearance in love of truth and loathe of lying...but His equal contentment in being settled that a thing known, even if not by Him, would not diminish Him.
> 
> (The things he has told me then...about that time, to me become all the more of established import in the light of His honor to truth. Even to the saying of "I do not know". Specifically...to discover somehow the "being ready" for what will take place precisely at the time I do not expect. The total incapacity/ability of self to this preparedness...to "be ready" for what will come, not just unexpectedly, but at the presise time of its non-expectation, leaves me searching for another to do, and be...what I manifestly cannot)
> 
> We sometimes say to one another, when a subtlety is discerned "I see what you did there". But this is all of no subtlety to me now...(even if it be to no other...yet) it is the place of all occupation, and has been of all time I have had knowing. I am searching for a person "to be", and with me, in this little plot of seeming isolated earth. If I too tightly hold uniqueness, I forfeit all fellowship. If I admit to all commonness of self, something else happens.
> 
> I have a promise if none receive it. Man can come out of solitary confinement...even and especially those who withstand its knowing in fleeting company of other things treasured _inside_. Every man is seeking a face of unequivocal reception. Even in his darkest knowings of himself.
> 
> Glimpses press me on.


It seems to me....
Its easy to believe when you "know".
To believe when you don't "know", now that requires commitment.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> It seems to me....
> Its easy to believe when you "know".
> To believe when you don't "know", now that requires commitment.


That’s the whole idea of faith.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> He showed for you, not for them.
> My EXACT point. You admitting it furthered it.


Maybe the problem is their lack of faith or disbelief or both????


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> A few do, but not all. Again you cherry pick so it makes sense to you while avoiding the elephant in the room.


Explain the cherry picking and what I’m avoiding.

It’s working for me with no issues. If you certainly had some real explanation / proof other than the quarter landing on heads the most........but the truth is you don’t. Landing in heads 49 out 50 tines doesn’t mean there’s no tail. The elephant in the room is what you missed, not me.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Mens truth definitely. That's all there is.


For some, I definitely agree.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> My imagination can fill the place of "I don't know" with way better things than Jesus, even a better version of Jesus.  I could vastly improve the story of the Bible in 5 minutes.


a lot of churches do but.......we see how that’s working out for them now


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> That’s the whole idea of faith.


Exactamundo!
And what is logic based on? What we know......
I know you don't see it but you are unwittingly displaying the contradictions of religion.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Exactamundo!
> And what is logic based on? What we know......
> I know you don't see it but you are unwittingly displaying the contradictions of religion.


Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It’s not unwittingly displaying anything.

I have had the faith for things not yet received and later received exactly that. Faith is built on believing the next time because of last time.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> It seems to me....
> Its easy to believe when you "know".
> To believe when you don't "know", now that requires commitment.


As is so often the case, semantics get in the way of clarity, but;
It seems to me...
It isn't possible to believe until you "know".
Without knowing, you can only assume.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It’s not unwittingly displaying anything.
> 
> I have had the faith for things not yet received and later received exactly that. Faith is built on believing the next time because of last time.





> It’s not unwittingly displaying anything.


"It's" not, you are.
You don't hope for something you know is going to happen/exists/etc.
When you "know" you don't need faith.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> As is so often the case, semantics get in the way of clarity, but;
> It seems to me...
> It isn't possible to believe until you "know".
> Without knowing, you can only assume.


Now we are going to get into the semantics of "know" 
There is "know" which you can prove so everybody else can know too.
There is "know" which satisfies you but you cant prove it.
Individual "know" vs Universal "know"

We "know" the earth is round.
There are still people who "know" the earth is flat.
One of the above "know" is actually "believe".


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Now we are going to get into the semantics of "know"
> There is "know" which you can prove so everybody else can know too.
> There is "know" which satisfies you but you cant prove it.
> Individual "know" vs Universal "know"
> 
> We "know" the earth is round.
> There are still people who "know" the earth is flat.
> One of the above "know" is actually "believe".


The earth is spheroidal.
Enough said.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> "It's" not, you are.
> You don't hope for something you know is going to happen/exists/etc.
> When you "know" you don't need faith.


But...............the things I am referring to had no other explanation for happening, so there`s no way to know and therefore faith is required. If it could be explained, then we could determine the chances and the no reason to have faith.

Yea I got a pretty good chance of staying out of wreck or getting rescued if I fall out of a boat...........not talking about stuff like that.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> But...............the things I am referring to had no other explanation for happening, so there`s no way to know and therefore faith is required. If it could be explained, then we could determine the chances and the no reason to have faith.
> 
> Yea I got a pretty good chance of staying out of wreck or getting rescued if I fall out of a boat...........not talking about stuff like that.


You keep proving my point 
"if there is no way to know".
Logic is based on what we DO know.

Remember this started out with whether it is logical to say God did it.
You contend its logical to you because you believe in God.
Whether you can admit it or not, you don't know God exists you believe God exists.
Because you believe it so much you have turned "believe" into "know" in your mind.
Just like the folks who "know" the earth is flat. 
And I don't care if you believe it or "know" it or whatever. That's up to you.
But you gotta leave the word logic/logical out of it.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> You keep proving my point
> "if there is no way to know".
> Logic is based on what we DO know.
> 
> Remember this started out with whether it is logical to say God did it.
> You contend its logical to you because you believe in God.
> Whether you can admit it or not, you don't know God exists you believe God exists.
> Because you believe it so much you have turned "believe" into "know" in your mind.
> Just like the folks who "know" the earth is flat.
> And I don't care if you believe it or "know" it or whatever. That's up to you.
> But you gotta leave the word logic/logical out of it.


Not in the way that it appears, or maybe I presented it wrong or unclear. We may be on two separate issues with this?

The no way to explain is specific to me, there is not a logical medical or scientific explanation from them. Just a lot of I don't knows. So is it ok to say I don't know.....was my point.

I do know that he exists and its not because of just believing. If I only believed and relied on that alone, I would have given up already. It starts with faith, if I didn't believe it would work, I would not have tried it.

The "I don't know" that I am referring to is it`s ok to say I don't know why God intervenes in some cases and not in others. All I know is I haven't been left out on a limb.

I guess we both wear the shoes...........the believer gives God credit for the good and the non believer blames or questions his being for the bad.

The logic is..........it is not logical to know with certainty what others have unless you can disprove it. The only option left is to not believe it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Yes it is a fact logic is based on what we know/understand. No argument there.
> But you cant say "there is no other answer so its logical to believe God did it".
> "I don't know" is then the logical answer.
> "God did it" is based on faith/belief not logic.



I probably did a poor job conveying what I was attempting to.  Your response makes that pretty clear, so I'm gonna try this once more from a slightly different perspective.

Logical reasoning will contradict "Faith" much of the time, IFFFFF one does not allow for "God" or one start's with the preconception that "There is no God."  This should not suprise.  

That said, there is nothing illogical about the concept of God (See Kalam cosomological argument).  Bear in mind I'm not saying it's true, or everyone should find it true.  I'm just saying it's a logical argument.  

Now if the concept of a Judeo-Christian God is logical, then it's perfectly logical to believe that "God did it."  "God did it." is patently NOT the same as "I don't know."  Neither answer is illogical however.

In short if you confine logic to only the natural, then yes, the supernatural is illogical.  However, if you allow for the supernatural, and there is nothing illogical about doing so, then logic doesn't, it fact can't, contradict faith in the supernatural.  To do so would be .......well illogical.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> That is a very good explanation.
> 
> I think what I and others have a problem with is that so many believers rely on faith over logic. Many times it is not a problem until faith leads to improper or no medical treatment, and all the different faiths in all the different gods where that faith justifies the killing in the name of those gods.





> I think what I and others have a problem with is that so many believers rely on faith over logic.


 
Here's what I think personally.  If my faith is true, there should not be anything illogical about it given logic points to/validates truth.   The fault, if there's a contradiction, is in my understanding:my understanding is wrong or incomplete.  

Going back to the OP, I think it's obvious they were just plain evil and ignorant.  They cited religion as their reason and then cited a Darwinism concept to enforce their "religious" stance.  I wouldn't call them believers in anything but self-preservation and selfishness.  

As for as to all the other gods and faiths, I would say it's just as with everything else in life, it's the individuals responsibility to determine which is true.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1. When you say "known" do you realize that you're talking about a subjective experience? It's not the same as saying "I _know_ that rocks fall down" because anyone can go and test it themselves.  It's impossible for anyone to _know_ it the same way as you and therefore isn't worth much to anyone else.
> 
> 2. If you acknowledge a spiritual dimension that leaves all manner of things possible, not just the one's you personally believe in and you can't say with any authority which claims about the spiritual world are false and which are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation is a problem.  It's neither provable or disprovable.   That makes it useless for anyone else unless you can get them to believe that you have the proper _REAL _revelation_.  _I don't like people to use revelation as a means to determine truth about anything, particularly "here and now" matters, when there are much better systems for that.
> 
> Imagine someone prays and has a revelation the they should vote for Trump.....or Hillary.  It seems like a bad way to make decisions.





> When you say "known" do you realize that you're talking about a subjective experience?



This horse has been beat to death ad nausea, and I'm not gonna go there.  Suffice it to say that there is much in my life that I find true because it IS subjective. 



> 2. If you acknowledge a spiritual dimension that leaves all manner of things possible,



Yes it does, but that in itself doesn't make it neither illogical nor false.



> not just the one's you personally believe in and you can't say with any authority which claims about the spiritual world are false and which are true



That's where we disagree.  Just because one religion is true doesn't make them all true no more than just because one is false doesn't make them all false.  Experiential is out as a truth detector for obvious reasons.  What does that leave other than the .........?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> It seems to me....
> Its easy to believe when you "know".
> To believe when you don't "know", now that requires commitment.




Very, Very well said. I would have said ".....requires trust.", but again, well said.


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> I probably did a poor job conveying what I was attempting to.  Your response makes that pretty clear, so I'm gonna try this once more from a slightly different perspective.
> 
> Logical reasoning will contradict "Faith" much of the time, IFFFFF one does not allow for "God" or one start's with the preconception that "There is no God."  This should not suprise.
> 
> That said, there is nothing illogical about the concept of God (See Kalam cosomological argument).  Bear in mind I'm not saying it's true, or everyone should find it true.  I'm just saying it's a logical argument.
> 
> Now if the concept of a Judeo-Christian God is logical, then it's perfectly logical to believe that "God did it."  "God did it." is patently NOT the same as "I don't know."  Neither answer is illogical however.
> 
> In short if you confine logic to only the natural, then yes, the supernatural is illogical.  However, if you allow for the supernatural, and there is nothing illogical about doing so, then logic doesn't, it fact can't, contradict faith in the supernatural.  To do so would be .......well illogical.





> IFFFFF one does not allow for "God" or one start's with the preconception that "There is no God."


Until a god is proven to exist the only logical starting point is that there are no gods.
No concept, argument or allowance can get around that.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Until a god is proven to exist the only logical starting point is that there are no gods.
> No concept, argument or allowance can get around that.


But that’s opinionated, biased and non factual.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> But that’s opinionated, biased and non factual.


No its a logical argument. Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Israel

"Thin ice" is such a relative term.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> No its a logical argument. Nothing more nothing less.



One could have just as easily said this:

“Until a god is proven to NOT exist the only logical starting point is that there are gods.”

Both are opinions and probably good examples of circular reasoning (It’s too early in the morning for me to trust those synapses to be firing properly.”


----------



## hummerpoo

D1. The Argument from Ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam)



> It is fallacious to argue that some proposition is true simply because it has not been proved false.  It is equally fallacious to argue that some proposition is false simply because it has not been proven true.



Introduction to Logic, twelfth edition, Copi/Cohen, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005, pg. 140


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> One could have just as easily said this:
> 
> “Until a god is proven to NOT exist the only logical starting point is that there are gods.”
> 
> Both are opinions and probably good examples of circular reasoning (It’s too early in the morning for me to trust those synapses to be firing properly.”


Sure but it doesn't stop there.
From there you have to go about explaining how the one particular god you believe in the one that answered your prayers or is even one of the gods that actually exist.
Maybe there is a big switch board in the sky and there is a lady patching your calls into some other god than the one you believe in.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> D1. The Argument from Ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam)
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to Logic, twelfth edition, Copi/Cohen, Pearson, Prentice Hall, 2005, pg. 140


But logic has to follow a path. There has to be a starting point.
Starting with IF there is a god or I BELIEVE there is a god only works if the other side accepts your word for it. If they do then yes, you can make a logical argument from there.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Maybe the problem is their lack of faith or disbelief or both????


Sure, that is the perfect excuse isn't it? They are not good Christians.
They are not worthy Christians 
They are not chosen Christians 
They are the Christians that do not have faith or even better, enough faith.
But the best and most fitting:
They are not Christians like I am a Christian.


But the truth is this God guy, if he exists as you say, seems to care about some Christians and not about other Christians. Lucky for him he has a few Christians that are able to decipher which ones are which. It is a group of one.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Explain the cherry picking and what I’m avoiding.
> 
> It’s working for me with no issues. If you certainly had some real explanation / proof other than the quarter landing on heads the most........but the truth is you don’t. Landing in heads 49 out 50 tines doesn’t mean there’s no tail. The elephant in the room is what you missed, not me.


Is God active in human lives?
Does he step in and save people from harm?
If the answer is yes, Would a good time to be when his representatives are molesting his children in God's house and in God's name?

The Elephant has a LifePreserver, his kids are drowning and he doesn't throw it.

Your cherry picking has to do with avoiding 10 examples I make and you answer the 11th that you interject to avoid the other 10.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> But logic has to follow a path. There has to be a starting point.
> Starting with IF there is a god or I BELIEVE there is a god only works if the other side accepts your word for it. If they do then yes, you can make a logical argument from there.


First
Your starting point can not be a fallacious argument.  It must be a proposition which is axiomatic.

Which leads to

"if the other side accepts your word for it"

I have not said that you were wrong ,or mistaken, or inaccurate, or deluded, or disingenuous when you (individually or collectively as the AA's) have said, in one form or another, "I have no reason to believe there is a god"*.  Can you say the same of the reasons expressed by believers?  When you can, we will be prepared to search for the axiom from which we can start a potentially productive discussion.  Until then, well, it is what it is.

*Scripture does say that all men have been shown God through His work of creation (Rm. 1); but I have not suggested, let alone insisted, that you (same you) should accept that, because I think it is revealed to His People for their understanding of the world in which they have been placed.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> First
> Your starting point can not be a fallacious argument.  It must be a proposition which is axiomatic.
> 
> Which leads to
> 
> "if the other side accepts your word for it"
> 
> I have not said that you were wrong ,or mistaken, or inaccurate, or deluded, or disingenuous when you (individually or collectively as the AA's) have said, in one form or another, "I have no reason to believe there is a god"*.  Can you say the same of the reasons expressed by believers?  When you can, we will be prepared to search for the axiom from which we can start a potentially productive discussion.  Until then, well, it is what it is.
> 
> *Scripture does say that all men have been shown God through His work of creation (Rm. 1); but I have not suggested, let alone insisted, that you (same you) should accept that, because I think it is revealed to His People for their understanding of the world in which they have been placed.


Oh I can think of a number of reasons why people believe in a god(God).
People have believed in gods in form or another for well.... forever.
I have heard several explanations as to why that is but none that has convinced me 100%. I readily admit there is the possibility that there may have been an "original god(s) and everybody has just put their own spin on it/them since then.


----------



## hummerpoo

I guess I failed again.  You have not addressed what I said, but something you made out of it.  Later, hopefully, much later.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I guess I failed again.  You have not addressed what I said, but something you made out of it.  Later, hopefully, much later.


Then obviously I misunderstood your point. You can choose to reword it or explain or put it another way so that I do understand.
Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.
I didn't purposely not address what you said.


----------



## ky55

hummerpoo said:


> I guess I failed again.  You have not addressed what I said, but something you made out of it.  Later, hopefully, much later.



I’m guessing your  failure rate will continue as long as you keep trying to convince rational people that superstitions actually exist. 

*


----------



## hummerpoo

ky55 said:


> I’m guessing your  failure rate will continue as long as you keep trying to convince rational people that superstitions actually exist.
> 
> *


Irrationality is proven, and you come up with this??????????????


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Then obviously I misunderstood your point. You can choose to reword it or explain or put it another way so that I do understand.
> Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.
> I didn't purposely not address what you said.



I accept that; but my judgment is that it's probably best to let it drop.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I accept that; but my judgment is that it's probably best to let it drop.


Your choice.
As long as you understand I didn't intentionally "make something else out of it", Im good.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Your choice.
> As long as you understand I didn't intentionally "make something else out of it", Im good.


We good.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Is God active in human lives?
> Does he step in and save people from harm?
> If the answer is yes, Would a good time to be when his representatives are molesting his children in God's house and in God's name?
> 
> The Elephant has a LifePreserver, his kids are drowning and he doesn't throw it.
> 
> Your cherry picking has to do with avoiding 10 examples I make and you answer the 11th that you interject to avoid the other 10.


Go find the scripture where what you describe happens and who it happens for. And it will help clear up the confusion of who his representatives are.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Sure, that is the perfect excuse isn't it? They are not good Christians.
> They are not worthy Christians
> They are not chosen Christians
> They are the Christians that do not have faith or even better, enough faith.
> But the best and most fitting:
> They are not Christians like I am a Christian.
> 
> 
> But the truth is this God guy, if he exists as you say, seems to care about some Christians and not about other Christians. Lucky for him he has a few Christians that are able to decipher which ones are which. It is a group of one.


 I believe your confusion with this is deeper than you admit.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Go find the scripture where what you describe happens and who it happens for. And it will help clear up the confusion of who his representatives are.


Children...innocent children...in his house...under his watchful eye.
It would be the equivalent of you sitting in your livingroom, watching it happening, and doing nothing because they are not from your congregation. 
If you can justify that with scripture and feel good about it...


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I believe your confusion with this is deeper than you admit.


I have ZERO confusion, I marvel at your delusion.


----------



## Israel

Do you not yet realize that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then is eliminated? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. These are what defile a man, but eating with unwashed hands does not defile him.

What isn't man..._capable of_?  What thought is so _evil _man cannot, or is not found enacting it? Is the above statement by Jesus Christ seen as evil....or true? Does Jesus speak "ill of man" here...or true of man, here?

And how does_ he get to say_ such a thing? Can "a" man speak such judgment...of man?
Or does he get to exempt himself from being man...like an alien...apart, able to see man, describe man...to man....and define man...to man? But...that would make him "not man".

I guess it's not hard to think of others who have imagined they have "stood apart", or try to, (follow me and you will not be like the _vile ones_ I describe!). You...will be better! (What's the purpose of having a nose if one cannot look down it at others?) Is that really what noses are for? Oppose the evil ones I describe...and that will show you...are the "good ones!" (how many wars...are finally enough?)

Maybe a nose is for sniffing out precisely that sort of thing? Maybe some noses are fallen into such disuse they don't see that ploy? Or do not...yet? (How to trick a man to your own will with the promise he gets to show himself..._good.) Do I see that ploy? _The promise of being on the _winning side_?

But...what is the fundamental of that appeal? It only has a power of convincing if I occupy the place of being at war with others. Only there can such an appeal to "be a winner" hold any attraction. God help! Is Jesus the one who came to "triumph over man"...or save him? What have I...what do I...believe? Jesus at war with man...or Jesus come to make peace with man? Will the real Jesus...please stand up!

But...I sure do _sense a_ battle. There's a fight going on. And what I took _out there _to prove a triumph over my fellows...to show myself..._better_...is all of the lie. And what workings it may have! What stooping to unseat another in such cunning craftiness waits to be revealed! And such stooping as does nothing but show...I am simply like my perception of all others. (But I don't want to be..."like everybody!")

(Insert lyrics for "I Gotta Be Me")

But..."what else can I be but who I am?"


Oh.

The battle is...within. The peace made _must be known_...within...where the battle for supremacy is always taking place...and flows out. In violence toward what _appears opposing. (I remember..."agree with thine adversary quickly...")_
But...I hear _very violent_ words come out of Jesus Christ!

Yes. And they must work where they are sent. Not...deflected.

If it is hard for any to believe _I would like_ to think myself better than a paedophile priest...where have you been these last years as I spoke?_ I'd like to think_ myself...better than every single one of you. Is that not yet plain?

But if I told you _I know_ I am no better than acting as any paedophile priest (or seemingly far worse to whatever imagination) except for a something restraining...who will tell me I_ cannot know _such a thing?

I would say be very careful of where you must stoop to try and unseat another man's knowing. One cannot go there and come back alive...unless one go there to bring that _other man_...out alive.

One came into my fiery house. Of all of he11 formed. It cost him...but he never throws the price in my face. He knows what that would do to such a weak creature. And...that's not who he is, anyway.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Children...innocent children...in his house...under his watchful eye.
> It would be the equivalent of you sitting in your livingroom, watching it happening, and doing nothing because they are not from your congregation.
> If you can justify that with scripture and feel good about it...



"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

God gave the commandment and the warning.
Man has no one to blame but himself.

But..

God also gave the solution. Jesus tasted death for every man.

The world is cursed with ungodliness on every hand, you nailed that part.
But when you said He does nothing about it, you missed badly.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
> 
> God gave the commandment and the warning.
> Man has no one to blame but himself.
> 
> But..
> 
> God also gave the solution. Jesus tasted death for every man.
> 
> The world is cursed with ungodliness on every hand, you nailed that part.
> But when you said He does nothing about it, you missed badly.


What did he do exactly?
I thought children, innocents, uninformed got a free pass ?
Where was your god when these things were happening in his house?
The fact that you can turn your cheek in favor of some verse shows that you, like your god, are products of man.


----------



## hummerpoo

Knowing that I am as quilty as any, and more than many, I sincerely apologize for my lack of sufficient strength to resist; only hoping that others may be able to audibly laugh and visibly weep at this. 



Spotlite said:


> I believe your confusion with this is deeper than you admit.





bullethead said:


> I have ZERO confusion, I marvel at your delusion.



Quotable? Tu Quoque.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> What did he do exactly?
> I thought children, innocents, uninformed got a free pass ?
> Where was your god when these things were happening in his house?
> The fact that you can turn your cheek in favor of some verse shows that you, like your god, are products of man.



No one gets a free pass. There was a very high price paid.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> What did he do exactly?
> I thought children, innocents, uninformed got a free pass ?
> Where was your god when these things were happening in his house?
> The fact that you can turn your cheek in favor of some verse shows that you, like your god, are products of man.





> What did he do exactly?


Said some words.
I guess the folks who claim God saved them in the car crash are pretty relieved God chose action as opposed to saying some words.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> No one gets a free pass. There was a very high price paid.


High price indeed.
Lawsuits and payoffs aint cheap.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> High price indeed.
> Lawsuits and payoffs aint cheap.



Money is utterly useless in this case. Sorry.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Money is utterly useless in this case. Sorry.


What is sorry is money is the only action victims could get.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> What is sorry is money is the only action victims could get.



We are speaking of two different things here. You speak of temporal things(life after a car crash)
I speak of eternal things(life after death)


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Children...innocent children...in his house...under his watchful eye.
> It would be the equivalent of you sitting in your livingroom, watching it happening, and doing nothing because they are not from your congregation.
> If you can justify that with scripture and feel good about it...



John 6:39 
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

I think this is the direction this discussion is headed.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> We are speaking of two different things here. You speak of temporal things(life after a car crash)
> I speak of eternal things(life after death)


I agree we are speaking of 2 different things.
I am speaking of things that in fact exist.
You are speaking of things you believe exists.
You are willing to minimize what in fact exists in favor of what you believe exists.
I place priority on what in fact exists over something that may or may not exist.
Definitely 2 different things.

Go ahead hit me with some scripture that you feel justifies that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Matthew 5:45 
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> No one gets a free pass. There was a very high price paid.


There is nothing to give free passes.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> John 6:39
> And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
> 
> I think this is the direction this discussion is headed.


Sure it is. It is a good way to keep satisfied until dead, nobody comes back to complain that it's nonsense.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Sure it is. It is a good way to keep satisfied until dead, nobody comes back to complain that it's nonsense.



I was thinking more along the lines as the children not being protected in the temporal world but maybe in eternity. But only if any of the children were of the Elect. 
We can't say or know that they would all be saved for eternity even if they were saved in the temporal world. 

Maybe God's protection is eternal salvation more than temporal salvation from things on the earth. I do see your point as well. People say that God saved them in an accident yet five other people died.

I don't think for this there is an answer.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I was thinking more along the lines as the children not being protected in the temporal world but maybe in eternity. But only if any of the children were of the Elect.
> We can't say or know that they would all be saved for eternity even if they were saved in the temporal world.
> 
> Maybe God's protection is eternal salvation more than temporal salvation from things on the earth. I do see your point as well. People say that God saved them in an accident yet five other people died.
> 
> I don't think for this there is an answer.


I think the answer is that humans created a coping mechanism that sounds really good to things that they want to apply it to but when scrutinized it doesn't hold up well and many excuses have to be made as to why.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I was thinking more along the lines as the children not being protected in the temporal world but maybe in eternity. But only if any of the children were of the Elect.
> We can't say or know that they would all be saved for eternity even if they were saved in the temporal world.
> 
> Maybe God's protection is eternal salvation more than temporal salvation from things on the earth. I do see your point as well. People say that God saved them in an accident yet five other people died.
> 
> I don't think for this there is an answer.


Another thing is, elect or not, God is supposed to be present at all times and in all places  and arguments can be made about the things that go on everywhere...
But,
For these things to happen in his house and by his representatives while God is there... and elect or not, him not doing anything out of compassion and empathy is Reprehensible. The excuse that he will allow it to happen but comp them later is Sickening.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Children...innocent children...in his house...under his watchful eye.
> It would be the equivalent of you sitting in your livingroom, watching it happening, and doing nothing because they are not from your congregation.
> If you can justify that with scripture and feel good about it...


What I am saying is that you keep going back to usual slogans that are used by non believers, and the "his house", "his representatives", and your "examples" with your reasoning / excuses. What you keep failing to do is to provide exactly what scripture says about his house and who his representatives are. If you don't even know that, then yes you are more confused about the subject than you are admitting. 

If you want to continue to believe that everyone that walks in the door is Christian, completes a seminary is his representative, and that building his house, that is your right to do so but it does mean you are correct. 

It has nothing to do with who does it right as you keep pointing to, my congregation, or feels good about it. If you are going to condemn something, learn how it operates first. 

This is a sad case that this keeps happening in the organization and shameful that some use it to push their anti God agenda. This in no way represents any Church / denomination or his representatives.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What I am saying is that you keep going back to usual slogans that are used by non believers, and the "his house", "his representatives", and your "examples" with your reasoning / excuses. What you keep failing to do is to provide exactly what scripture says about his house and who his representatives are. If you don't even know that, then yes you are more confused about the subject than you are admitting.
> 
> If you want to continue to believe that everyone that walks in the door is Christian, completes a seminary is his representative, and that building his house, that is your right to do so but it does mean you are correct.
> 
> It has nothing to do with who does it right as you keep pointing to, my congregation, or feels good about it. If you are going to condemn something, learn how it operates first.
> 
> This is a sad case that this keeps happening in the organization and shameful that some use it to push their anti God agenda. This in no way represents any Church / denomination or his representatives.


Man wrote scripture to justify and explain why God is a no show. That's  what people do who have invisible friends when others ask to see them, hear them, watch their work in action.
Right after inventing gods the next body of work is the excuses, err rules "by" their gods that cover their absences.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Man wrote scripture to justify and explain why God is a no show. That's  what people do who have invisible friends when others ask to see them, hear them, watch their work in action.
> Right after inventing gods the next body of work is the excuses, err rules "by" their gods that cover their absences.



Yep, god was absent, but it appears that the Pope was present and accounted for and had a front-row seat.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45318100

“Pope Francis has refused to respond to claims by a former Vatican diplomat who has called on him to resign.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano also accused the Pope of covering up reports of sexual abuse by a US cardinal.”


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Man wrote scripture to justify and explain why God is a no show. That's  what people do who have invisible friends when others ask to see them, hear them, watch their work in action.
> Right after inventing gods the next body of work is the excuses, err rules "by" their gods that cover their absences.




Yet you still can’t provide anything scripturally to support your accusation of   “no show” 

You say it’s a man made but what exactly is it?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yet you still can’t provide anything scripturally to support your accusation of   “no show”
> 
> You say it’s a man made but what exactly is it?


Scripture provides the excuses, the easy outs, the "He was not worthy" "They were not chosen" "They were not elect" the "You will be rewarded later" etc etc etc.

Man made means man is here Not god. 
You will have me believe that God knows everything, God sees Everything, God is Everywhere and that God saves people from harm.

As soon as it is shown that is not the case, you blame the victim for not being worthy enough. You blame the parents for falling for the tactics of predators. You say that innocent children who are too young to understand religion obviously didn't accept Jesus and that is why God didn't step in while it was happening in his house.
And you say that because it is in scripture that it is acceptable. 
I say it is in scripture because it is a way to explain a non interacting and non existent god.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Scripture provides the excuses, the easy outs, the "He was not worthy" "They were not chosen" "They were not elect" the "You will be rewarded later" etc etc etc.
> 
> Man made means man is here Not god.
> You will have me believe that God knows everything, God sees Everything, God is Everywhere and that God saves people from harm.
> 
> As soon as it is shown that is not the case, you blame the victim for not being worthy enough. You blame the parents for falling for the tactics of predators. You say that innocent children who are too young to understand religion obviously didn't accept Jesus and that is why God didn't step in while it was happening in his house.
> And you say that because it is in scripture that it is acceptable.
> I say it is in scripture because it is a way to explain a non interacting and non existent god.





bullethead said:


> And you say that because it is in scripture that it is acceptable.
> I say it is in scripture because it is a way to explain a non interacting and non existent god.



You keep claiming this but you have continuously failed to provide any of that scripture.

But, no, I have not blamed the victim for not being worthy. I blame the church for sweeping it under the rug, and I blame the parents for checking the boy scouts out more than they do folks with a history of this. 

That is not the victims fault and has nothing to do with the elect, chosen or being worthy. That is just a crutch you are leaning on. I said I have questions myself.

This is more of the same ole taking advantage of someone`s wrong doing and the tragedy of some innocent victim`s to further push an opinionated, biased, anti God agenda. 

The real sad case is some will slobber over this to prove God as a no show but have no concern that this same thing happens in places outside of a church. 

Where is the outrage and concern here?
https://www.propublica.org/article/...molesting-eight-children-at-immigrant-shelter


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You keep claiming this but you have continuously failed to provide any of that scripture.
> 
> But, no, I have not blamed the victim for not being worthy. I blame the church for sweeping it under the rug, and I blame the parents for checking the boy scouts out more than they do folks with a history of this.
> 
> That is not the victims fault and has nothing to do with the elect, chosen or being worthy. That is just a crutch you are leaning on. I said I have questions myself.
> 
> This is more of the same ole taking advantage of someone`s wrong doing and the tragedy of some innocent victim`s to further push an opinionated, biased, anti God agenda.
> 
> The real sad case is some will slobber over this to prove God as a no show but have no concern that this same thing happens in places outside of a church.
> 
> Where is the outrage and concern here?
> https://www.propublica.org/article/...molesting-eight-children-at-immigrant-shelter


I have always maintained that God is a no show outside of church. I have mentioned that in this conversation. There is outrage.

I have also mentioned a few times that for the sake of this convo, despite the fact that believers claim god is everywhere,  lets focus on what took place in Gods house because if god is indeed everywhere he should at least want to keep an eye on his own house a little better.  THAT is why I continue on with that one specific example.

Now, since you want outrage about EVERY other bad thing that goes without Gods intervention, and since you still say that God intervenes....which is it?
Why did he intervene for you and not for anyone else that also needed it? ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN GETTING MOLESTED IN GOD'S OWN BUILDINGS???


----------



## Israel

Maybe some of the discord is regarding the understanding of "God's own building/s" and if in fact anything might take place in one to his appearing?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Maybe some of the discord is regarding the understanding of "God's own building/s" and if in fact anything might take place in one to his appearing?


It is my understanding from God's believers that God is everywhere at all times, can see and hear everything, it is said that God knows what is going to happen even before it happens. His believers even claim that God takes the time to step in and alter the outcomes of life changing situations.  So whether or not the buildings are God's, according to his believers he is present. And what takes place in those buildings he sees, hears and knows about. Literally watching it as it happens.
Now, if those things are true and he can sit on the sidelines while it is going on and NOT step in to stop it...literally WON'T stop it, he is a twisted sicko. I wouldn't and couldn't worship a monster of that magnitude. If his believers can find verses to condone it and make excuses for him..I'm thinking that they are equally as twisted.

But if God exists as constantly stated in here by believers.. with him being able to see, hear and know everything and does not step in to do anything because he just does not have the power to do anything, then he isn't worthy of being called a God. 

And another option is that Good situations turn Bad and Bad situations turn Good and many times there is no explanation why. Sometimes people who are representatives of higher powers do awful things to children and the truth is there is really NOBODY or NO God to step in and do anything about it.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> It is my understanding from God's believers that God is everywhere at all times, can see and hear everything, it is said that God knows what is going to happen even before it happens. His believers even claim that God takes the time to step in and alter the outcomes of life changing situations.  So whether or not the buildings are God's, according to his believers he is present. And what takes place in those buildings he sees, hears and knows about. Literally watching it as it happens.
> Now, if those things are true and he can sit on the sidelines while it is going on and NOT step in to stop it...literally WON'T stop it, he is a twisted sicko. I wouldn't and couldn't worship a monster of that magnitude. If his believers can find verses to condone it and make excuses for him..I'm thinking that they are equally as twisted.
> 
> But if God exists as constantly stated in here by believers.. with him being able to see, hear and know everything and does not step in to do anything because he just does not have the power to do anything, then he isn't worthy of being called a God.
> 
> And another option is that Good situations turn Bad and Bad situations turn Good and many times there is no explanation why. Sometimes people who are representatives of higher powers do awful things to children and the truth is there is really NOBODY or NO God to step in and do anything about it.




The way you frame your argument makes me truly understand the utility of the phrase "Lay it at the foot of The Cross".  It's a lazy way to deal with the more difficult problems of humanity.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> It is my understanding from God's believers that God is everywhere at all times, can see and hear everything, it is said that God knows what is going to happen even before it happens. His believers even claim that God takes the time to step in and alter the outcomes of life changing situations.  So whether or not the buildings are God's, according to his believers he is present. And what takes place in those buildings he sees, hears and knows about. Literally watching it as it happens.
> Now, if those things are true and he can sit on the sidelines while it is going on and NOT step in to stop it...literally WON'T stop it, he is a twisted sicko. I wouldn't and couldn't worship a monster of that magnitude. If his believers can find verses to condone it and make excuses for him..I'm thinking that they are equally as twisted.
> 
> But if God exists as constantly stated in here by believers.. with him being able to see, hear and know everything and does not step in to do anything because he just does not have the power to do anything, then he isn't worthy of being called a God.
> 
> And another option is that Good situations turn Bad and Bad situations turn Good and many times there is no explanation why. Sometimes people who are representatives of higher powers do awful things to children and the truth is there is really NOBODY or NO God to step in and do anything about it.


I wish the believers here would/could focus STRICTLY on your logic with this and if they think it is flawed to tell us why and how.
No trying to go around it with scripture, no trying to go off in a different direction, no trying to blame it on an anti-God agenda.
Im surely not holding my breath though.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> I wish the believers here would/could focus STRICTLY on your logic with this and if they think it is flawed to tell us why and how.
> No trying to go around it with scripture, no trying to go off in a different direction, no trying to blame it on an anti-God agenda.
> Im surely not holding my breath though.



Ain’t gonna happen. 
They can’t let the truth mess up a good story.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> I wish the believers here would/could focus STRICTLY on your logic with this and if they think it is flawed to tell us why and how.
> No trying to go around it with scripture, no trying to go off in a different direction, no trying to blame it on an anti-God agenda.
> Im surely not holding my breath though.


If we focus strictly on his logic we would be just as blind.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I have always maintained that God is a no show outside of church. I have mentioned that in this conversation. There is outrage.
> 
> I have also mentioned a few times that for the sake of this convo, despite the fact that believers claim god is everywhere,  lets focus on what took place in Gods house because if god is indeed everywhere he should at least want to keep an eye on his own house a little better.  THAT is why I continue on with that one specific example.
> 
> Now, since you want outrage about EVERY other bad thing that goes without Gods intervention, and since you still say that God intervenes....which is it?
> Why did he intervene for you and not for anyone else that also needed it? ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN GETTING MOLESTED IN GOD'S OWN BUILDINGS???


First, you need to understand what makes a person a child of God before you determine what buildings are his house.

You went there with bible, I’m just asking you to back it up.


----------



## Israel

Standing. You must have standing to bring a suit.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> If we focus strictly on his logic we would be just as blind.


Sotlite that's exactly what Im talking about when I say "go off in a different direction.
Bullet is taking claims made by believers and going from there.
He's not being anti-God, he's not twisting scripture, he's not making stuff up.
Believers claim God sees/knows/can control all.. he's using YOUR/CHRISTIAN claims as the basis of his logic.
You guys complain we don't take your word for stuff. He's taking your/Christians word for it that God has these powers......
And that makes him blind?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> First, you need to understand what makes a person a child of God before you determine what buildings are his house.
> 
> You went there with bible, I’m just asking you to back it up.


There have been scripture quotes all throughout this thread FROM believers that say what you are asking. I didn't need to provide them.

And if what you say about a god is true scripture has nothing to do with it for the reasons I stated above.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Sotlite that's exactly what Im talking about when I say "go off in a different direction.
> Bullet is taking claims made by believers and going from there.
> He's not being anti-God, he's not twisting scripture, he's not making stuff up.
> Believers claim God sees/knows/can control all.. he's using YOUR/CHRISTIAN claims as the basis of his logic.
> You guys complain we don't take your word for stuff. He's taking your/Christians word for it that God has these powers......
> And that makes him blind?


What I’m saying is he keeps referring to  “his house” and “his representatives”.

What I’ve kept asking him to provide is what makes a person his representative and a place his house.

There are some key elements there. I’m not asking either of you to believe me, just want to see what he’s using as making scum like this “his representatives”


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Sotlite that's exactly what Im talking about when I say "go off in a different direction.
> Bullet is taking claims made by believers and going from there.
> He's not being anti-God, he's not twisting scripture, he's not making stuff up.
> Believers claim God sees/knows/can control all.. he's using YOUR/CHRISTIAN claims as the basis of his logic.
> You guys complain we don't take your word for stuff. He's taking your/Christians word for it that God has these powers......
> And that makes him blind?


At least spotlite has admitted that he has questions too..
But
It seems he is unwilling to tell us what they are and tell us what he thinks the answers are. He instead interprets scripture as symbolic and metaforic "buildings" and is somehow able to uae scripture to overlook the horrors that happen in the presence of his God.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What I’m saying is he keeps referring to  “his house” and “his representatives”.
> 
> What I’ve kept asking him to provide is what makes a person his representative and a place his house.
> 
> There are some key elements there. I’m not asking either of you to believe me, just want to see what he’s using as making scum like this “his representatives”


Spotlite these priests and clergy have been using their positions within the church and their power as representatives of your God to do these things. You can say they are not "REAL" clergy and not "REAL" representatives just like believers say about Christians who are different than themselves but it does not change the fact that if your God is everywhere, all seeing, all hearing, all knowing, all powerful and gets involved in the outcome of human events LIKE YOU SAY HE DOES, I want to know where he was over a thousand different times in Pennsylvania alone while these things were going on!!!????

We dont have to bring up the tens of thousands of times he is a no show daily all over the country or millions of times he is a no show all over the planet daily....there is no need to give more examples of what an unwilling, uncapable, or non existent creature it is.

Address why this God of yours allowed these things to happen in churches by ordained clergy.


----------



## ky55

Spotlite said:


> What I’m saying is he keeps referring to  “his house” and “his representatives”.
> 
> What I’ve kept asking him to provide is what makes a person his representative and a place his house.
> 
> There are some key elements there. I’m not asking either of you to believe me, just want to see what he’s using as making scum like this “his representatives”



Spotlite, do you realize that some of these “scum” were “His” representatives, in “His” house, in good standing, for as long as 50 years before they were exposed?
They held mass, did weddings, confessions, last rites, and performed all of the other duties required of a Catholic priest. 

How the heck do you describe them if they are not “His” representatives in “His” house?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> What I’m saying is he keeps referring to  “his house” and “his representatives”.
> 
> What I’ve kept asking him to provide is what makes a person his representative and a place his house.
> 
> There are some key elements there. I’m not asking either of you to believe me, just want to see what he’s using as making scum like this “his representatives”


Spotlite, if you saw a child getting diddled, and heard a child getting diddled by a person that even falsely said he represented you and did these things in a building that he lied and said was your house...and you had the power to stop it would you act as fast as you can?
Or
Would you need to see if the perpetrator and or victims were worthy enough or somehow justified through scripture before you acted?
Would you say, "well that guy is not REALLY me and that is not REALLY my house" and just sit there and watch and listen and do nothing???


----------



## bullethead

ky55 said:


> Spotlite, do you realize that some of these “scum” were “His” representatives, in “His” house, in good standing, for as long as 50 years before they were exposed?
> They held mass, did weddings, confessions, last rites, and performed all of the other duties required of a Catholic priest.
> 
> How the heck do you describe them if they are not “His” representatives in “His” house?


I am getting the feeling that spotlite has come to the conclusion that since these guys were not really priests and did not really represent God,  and it happened in churches but they are not really God's houses, and god can see into the hearts of the molesters and victims that God allowed it because neither were really fans of God anyway so they somehow deserve it and let it happen.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> I am getting the feeling that spotlite has come to the conclusion that since these guys were not really priests and did not really represent God,  and it happened in churches but they are not really God's houses, and god can see into the hearts of the molesters and victims that God allowed it because neither were really fans of God anyway so they somehow deserve it and let it happen.



And I’m getting the feeling that maybe Spotlite doesn’t think that making a conscious decision at an early age to give up your entire life, attend seminary, and serve as a full-time representative of the Catholic Church meets his definition of a “calling” from the Almighty.
Maybe an illiterate baptist preacher who has his wife read the Bible to him and has convinced a congregation that the good lord struck him in the top of the head with a lightning bolt is truly called?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> What I’m saying is he keeps referring to  “his house” and “his representatives”.
> 
> What I’ve kept asking him to provide is what makes a person his representative and a place his house.
> 
> There are some key elements there. I’m not asking either of you to believe me, just want to see what he’s using as making scum like this “his representatives”


Forget representatives, forget who's house it is.
Does God have the ability to know all, see all and intervene when he chooses?
If the answer is yes, Bullet's point stands.
If the answer is no, God is not what Christians claim he is.
Anything else is just trying to avoid those really simple facts.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> Spotlite, do you realize that some of these “scum” were “His” representatives, in “His” house, in good standing, for as long as 50 years before they were exposed?
> They held mass, did weddings, confessions, last rites, and performed all of the other duties required of a Catholic priest.
> 
> How the heck do you describe them if they are not “His” representatives in “His” house?


I believe that's my point. No matter what they did that appeared to you to be his representatives, they`re not. His representatives follow his teachings, not the catholics or anyone else`s.  They didn't keep his commandments, not his representatives.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> Forget representatives, forget who's house it is.
> Does God have the ability to know all, see all and intervene when he chooses?
> If the answer is yes, Bullet's point stands.
> If the answer is no, God is not what Christians claim he is.
> Anything else is just trying to avoid those really simple facts.


Yes God has the ability, why he does or does not is one of the questions I say I have.

I wished I knew how he operates in full detail, but I don`t. But, that in no way is an indicator or proof that he does not exist. The non-existence is bullets driver. If that were the case, then the simple fact of us claiming he shows up for us is proof that he does exist.


----------



## Spotlite

ky55 said:


> And I’m getting the feeling that maybe Spotlite doesn’t think that making a conscious decision at an early age to give up your entire life, attend seminary, and serve as a full-time representative of the Catholic Church meets his definition of a “calling” from the Almighty.
> Maybe an illiterate baptist preacher who has his wife read the Bible to him and has convinced a congregation that the good lord struck him in the top of the head with a lightning bolt is truly called?


See ya`ll need to study a little bit............a man called of God will have the fruits to follow


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, if you saw a child getting diddled, and heard a child getting diddled by a person that even falsely said he represented you and did these things in a building that he lied and said was your house...and you had the power to stop it would you act as fast as you can?
> Or
> Would you need to see if the perpetrator and or victims were worthy enough or somehow justified through scripture before you acted?
> Would you say, "well that guy is not REALLY me and that is not REALLY my house" and just sit there and watch and listen and do nothing???


You are mixing up the worthiness of things that only you have implied and crossing the boundaries between the spiritual and the nature of man. If I saw any child getting diddled I would be on the stand explaining why the diddler took a dirt nap and weighed about 60 ounces heavier in lead. 

No where in the scriptures are you promised anything whatsoever about no problems, sufferings or trials ever on this earth. If you can find it, please share it. To you, any bad happens means no God?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite these priests and clergy have been using their positions within the church and their power as representatives of your God to do these things. You can say they are not "REAL" clergy and not "REAL" representatives just like believers say about Christians who are different than themselves but it does not change the fact that if your God is everywhere, all seeing, all hearing, all knowing, all powerful and gets involved in the outcome of human events LIKE YOU SAY HE DOES, I want to know where he was over a thousand different times in Pennsylvania alone while these things were going on!!!????
> 
> We dont have to bring up the tens of thousands of times he is a no show daily all over the country or millions of times he is a no show all over the planet daily....there is no need to give more examples of what an unwilling, uncapable, or non existent creature it is.
> 
> Address why this God of yours allowed these things to happen in churches by ordained clergy.


As I said before, he hasn't been a no show for some

It happened in these places for the same reason it happened with Jim Jones................self proclaimed men that do not bear the fruits.

If that is one of the things that you are clinging to for confidence, you did not take it one God further in full detail and research as you claimed.

If you were honest here, if none of this happened you would still not believe in God, so the agenda here is anti God with any tool you can use. Your point is made.


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Yes God has the ability, why he does or does not is one of the questions I say I have.
> 
> I wished I knew how he operates in full detail, but I don`t. But, that in no way is an indicator or proof that he does not exist. The non-existence is bullets driver. If that were the case, then the simple fact of us claiming he shows up for us is proof that he does exist.





> why he does or does not is one of the questions I say I have.


One possible answer is one Bullet gave -
Despite the fact you believe he exists.... he doesn't and therefore cannot/did not intervene.
Obviously to you that is not going to be an acceptable possibility. But until God is proven to exist its a legitimate possibility.
Bullet also gave another possible answer - God CHOSE not to intervene. If God chose not to intervene..... well even you said the diddler would be 60 ozs. heavier if it was you that caught him.

One of the questions you have is why God does or does not intervene. That means you don't know why. If you don't why, you cant reject the possible answers that you don't like.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Yes God has the ability, why he does or does not is one of the questions I say I have.
> 
> I wished I knew how he operates in full detail, but I don`t. But, that in no way is an indicator or proof that he does not exist. The non-existence is bullets driver. If that were the case, then the simple fact of us claiming he shows up for us is proof that he does exist.


You're level of proof is very low. Simply saying he does exist opens the door to anything and everything.

I say he is unwilling, unable or does not exist. All three answer why he is a repeated no show which goes along with him NOT SHOWING time after time after time.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You are mixing up the worthiness of things that only you have implied and crossing the boundaries between the spiritual and the nature of man. If I saw any child getting diddled I would be on the stand explaining why the diddler took a dirt nap and weighed about 60 ounces heavier in lead.
> 
> No where in the scriptures are you promised anything whatsoever about no problems, sufferings or trials ever on this earth. If you can find it, please share it. To you, any bad happens means no God?


John 14:13 just to name one.
Are you telling me that when a child cries out to Jesus asking for him to make a priest stop it goes unheard ?if heard then why unanswered?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> As I said before, he hasn't been a no show for some
> 
> It happened in these places for the same reason it happened with Jim Jones................self proclaimed men that do not bear the fruits.
> 
> If that is one of the things that you are clinging to for confidence, you did not take it one God further in full detail and research as you claimed.
> 
> If you were honest here, if none of this happened you would still not believe in God, so the agenda here is anti God with any tool you can use. Your point is made.


I have no agenda. I hold supposed higher beings to higher standards.
I am not afraid to ask the questions and try to find a ratiinal explanation for answers.

All you have given me is conflicting answers like  "God does this" & "I don't know how god works" "God helps people in need" & "God doesn't help people in need"

You can't seem to grasp the limits of man made scripture.


----------



## Israel

There's a very_ suitable place_ for God to show up when a man is brought to truly desire relief from unrighteousness. Un-right-ness.
Till he discovers his most vain (and unrighteous) desire is to limit _that appearing_ to the "out there" and excuse his own place of occupation he argues foolishly with his maker.

God need only appear but once in that _suitable place_.
Once killed by assault of _friendly fire_...is enough.

Religion sells the notion of escape from judgment by _doing something. _And often _many things._

_Adeste infidelis. _

Come all who would either seek to prove Jesus a liar...or even _try to prove_...Jesus true. That work...is finished.
Come all triers. To ground zero.

And be tried.


----------



## hummerpoo

Israel said:


> There's a very_ suitable place_ for God to show up when a man is brought to truly desire relief from unrighteousness. Un-right-ness.
> Till he discovers his most vain (and unrighteous) desire is to limit _that appearing_ to the "out there" and excuse his own place of occupation he argues foolishly with his maker.
> 
> God need only appear but once in that _suitable place_.
> Once killed by assault of _friendly fire_...is enough.
> 
> Religion sells the notion of escape from judgment by _doing something. _And often _many things._
> 
> _Adeste infidelis. _
> 
> Come all who would either seek to prove Jesus a liar...or even _try to prove_...Jesus true. That work...is finished.
> Come all triers. To ground zero.
> 
> And be tried.


Habakkuk learned well.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> There's a very_ suitable place_ for God to show up when a man is brought to truly desire relief from unrighteousness. Un-right-ness.
> Till he discovers his most vain (and unrighteous) desire is to limit _that appearing_ to the "out there" and excuse his own place of occupation he argues foolishly with his maker.
> 
> God need only appear but once in that _suitable place_.
> Once killed by assault of _friendly fire_...is enough.
> 
> Religion sells the notion of escape from judgment by _doing something. _And often _many things._
> 
> _Adeste infidelis. _
> 
> Come all who would either seek to prove Jesus a liar...or even _try to prove_...Jesus true. That work...is finished.
> Come all triers. To ground zero.
> 
> And be tried.


I've been waiting at ground zero. Nobody else showed.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Habakkuk learned well.


Habakkuk is another guy(?) that exists nowhere but in scripture and is buried and at least three different places.
Very believable...


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> All you have given me is conflicting answers like  "God does this" & "I don't know how god works" "God helps people in need" & "God doesn't help people in need"
> 
> You can't seem to grasp the limits of man made scripture.



I think some “believers” gave up on genuine belief a long time ago after struggling with the tough questions, but they feel like they have to keep up appearances to stay in their support group and avoid the embarrassment of telling the truth.
Can you imagine how tough it would be to realize that you’ve wasted years and years of your life and a substantial amount of your money following a myth?

How much money have the folks with good incomes who tithe taken away from their families over the years and dropped in the plate?

Thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands in some cases I’m sure.
That would be tough to realize, and even tougher to admit.

I guess once they are in so deep they just have to keep up appearances and ride it out.


----------



## bullethead

ky55 said:


> I think some “believers” gave up on genuine belief a long time ago after struggling with the tough questions, but they feel like they have to keep up appearances to stay in their support group and avoid the embarrassment of telling the truth.
> Can you imagine how tough it would be to realize that you’ve wasted years and years of your life and a substantial amount of your money following a myth?
> 
> How much money have the folks with good incomes who tithe taken away from their families over the years and dropped in the plate?
> 
> Thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands in some cases I’m sure.
> That would be tough to realize, and even tougher to admit.
> 
> I guess once they are in so deep they just have to keep up appearances and ride it out.


Your first paragraph described me some years ago.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Your first paragraph described me some years ago.



It most likely described a lot of us.


----------



## WaltL1

> bullethead said:
> Your first paragraph described me some years ago.





ky55 said:


> It most likely described a lot of us.


For me it wasn't about embarrassment or support group etc., it was about the pain I was going to cause family.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> For me it wasn't about embarrassment or support group etc., it was about the pain I was going to cause family.



Yes, and I should have put that as the #1 reason.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> For me it wasn't about embarrassment or support group etc., it was about the pain I was going to cause family.


That included for me too. Also it took me a couple years to say it out loud instead of just think it.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> For me it wasn't about embarrassment or support group etc., it was about the pain I was going to cause family.



You do realize the gate you've opened in that statement?

Suspending all matters of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, can we put down our weapons? Isn't that the only place...we really can? Put them down I mean. Where neither is resorting to "back up" in their communications...is it possible?

Do I hear you rightly?

"For me to _pursue/be_ who I believe I am relative to the self identification of (even relatives!) others...for me to be consistent with "myself" ( and my self identification in regards to this "god thing") I can see where I can be a cause of pain."

That's a hard place, isn't it?

Others want to _hold me _in their affections as a certain thing according to _their perceptions _(at least as one _might perceive_) but _now the identity_ _I declare _is at (in some way) odds/opposition with what I perceive as their fundamental self identification and affection for their view of themselves. "I will (probably) in some way, then be placing myself into this matter of their affections to some sort of disruption". I may now come between "them" and their affections. (I _may make it hard for them _to love me! And I know..._they have_...and want to!) 

There's a pleasure to be found in affections...isn't there? Especially affections seen as fulfill able. Or...fulfilled. Yes, there's a hard danger in disrupting them.

And yes...it's a hard place.

Hard in the sense that it hurts to occupy it, and hard in the sense of it really being the _only place_ of true occupation. Hard...as in firm, unyielding...true.

It's salient that you do not say "I was concerned my family my not love me as they had..." but rather, "me, being me (and to be _true me, and true to me_) might cause them pain"

Oh, I could (any man could) say "I will not confess to being _who I am _to escape this hard place, and let them go on in delusion of who they may think _I am..._to spare them pain". But what then is the prima facie truth there? What contradiction (if any) have I placed myself into by my desire (which I perceive as _love for them)..._in the very seeking _to spare them?_

I say "I _love them_", yet in order for the outworking of this _love..._to_ a sparing of them, _I will_ let them continue (_by not disabusing _their illusion) _in a deluded state of _"who I am". _But then_...is this love? At all? _

Am I _truly loving _if I do not reveal to them..."who I am"? Don't I consign them to the "dupe-able" bin? And if I do (and as men we do this more often than we know) allow a misrepresentation to continue to let them (in blindness to "who I really am") persist in that delusion...well...I think we all find it then hard _to love _what we _do not_, and _cannot respect._ And _no con man _can respect _his mark_. No one can truly respect...what can be fooled...by him.

But like chicken and egg it might be hard to discern which comes first. Do con men, or better...are con men...con men...precisely because they cannot, al principio, respect _another_? Or do they _become con men _when discovering how easily the_ whole of the world may be fooled? _And they then (quite wrongly?) occupy that place of "all are fools...except me." (In such pride elevating themselves...above all others...thinking they themselves are not a part of all that _they do see_ "foolable")

We may come to see something we usually learn quite early..."there's a benefit _to me_ in letting others embrace an illusion of me that brings me affection." But likewise we also learn there's a bristling, an _acute discomfort_ if I allow some to continue to embrace a view of me that causes disdain...of me. Yes, we learn early to play to both the fans...and play against (for the purpose of _victory over_) our detractors. If I show a _victory there (!) _I gain..._more fans!_

It doesn't take much to see how a man (or maybe _it does take much to see!_) how a man has entered into "playing for a multitude"...(the world)...and basing now his sole "self identification" on how many "likes" he garners. (likes come in many forms...money, fame, out pourings of respect...) But what if he gains...all of a ship of fools? All...acknowledge him as _the bomb_. What must he see his kingdom as...but fools? So easily...duped...by his playing. (What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world...?)

I mean...I want to be King...but only a concord of fools could make me _one_. And so...my royal reign is tarnished...by knowing, I now have only communing amongst fools. I have won...(O! How I want to be_ the Honcho!_)...but now...I have no one left...to respect. And that means...none...to love. I have _lost all_ in my winning!

Can there ever be a way out of this..._game_?

Can the desire for triumph (_proved rightness_, if you will) ever find a place where one is not summarily abandoned there to isolation?

We so often communicate _in battle, _some we may mark "wins"...others, losses... (are we that unfamiliar with our own "tally sheets"?), and go on, and on.
We catch glimpses of glint of steel from one another, most often ready to identify swords. (It's _safer to us _to mistake a plowshare for a sword_,_ than be duped the other way round)

I am learning to seek the one who understands all of the above very well. How he could love and respect man (yet who is so easily and fond of being...duped) enough to tell them the truth about who He is. He knew the pain, the hard place...it would put man in. Comforting lies...or Him? What traitor I would be to deny to abandonment...the one who has never abandoned me.

But...even as much as I am, or might be repulsed by self identifying as a traitor (and so seek to resist it by _great show_ of fealty)...a greater truth remains that sobers me up _when drunk upon my own preferences_ of how I would like to view myself.

I cannot diminish Him, anyway. He is...who He says He is. And He will not "play" to win my affections. Or _change_ in care of not losing them.

He is hard...and narrow...enough to abide true to Himself.
It's a something I have never seen...before.
A _true_ man.
I very much want to know what that's like. I have known well enough (but, have I?)...the other.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You do realize the gate you've opened in that statement?
> 
> Suspending all matters of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, can we put down our weapons? Isn't that the only place...we really can? Put them down I mean. Where neither is resorting to "back up" in their communications...is it possible?
> 
> Do I hear you rightly?
> 
> "For me to _pursue/be_ who I believe I am relative to the self identification of (even relatives!) others...for me to be consistent with "myself" ( and my self identification in regards to this "god thing") I can see where I can be a cause of pain."
> 
> That's a hard place, isn't it?
> 
> Others want to _hold me _in their affections as a certain thing according to _their perceptions _(at least as one _might perceive_) but _now the identity_ _I declare _is at (in some way) odds/opposition with what I perceive as their fundamental self identification and affection for their view of themselves. "I will (probably) in some way, then be placing myself into this matter of their affections to some sort of disruption". I may now come between "them" and their affections. (I _may make it hard for them _to love me! And I know..._they have_...and want to!)
> 
> There's a pleasure to be found in affections...isn't there? Especially affections seen as fulfill able. Or...fulfilled. Yes, there's a hard danger in disrupting them.
> 
> And yes...it's a hard place.
> 
> Hard in the sense that it hurts to occupy it, and hard in the sense of it really being the _only place_ of true occupation. Hard...as in firm, unyielding...true.
> 
> It's salient that you do not say "I was concerned my family my not love me as they had..." but rather, "me, being me (and to be _true me, and true to me_) might cause them pain"
> 
> Oh, I could (any man could) say "I will not confess to being _who I am _to escape this hard place, and let them go on in delusion of who they may think _I am..._to spare them pain". But what then is the prima facie truth there? What contradiction (if any) have I placed myself into by my desire (which I perceive as _love for them)..._in the very seeking _to spare them?_
> 
> I say "I _love them_", yet in order for the outworking of this _love..._to_ a sparing of them, _I will_ let them continue (_by not disabusing _their illusion) _in a deluded state of _"who I am". _But then_...is this love? At all? _
> 
> Am I _truly loving _if I do not reveal to them..."who I am"? Don't I consign them to the "dupe-able" bin? And if I do (and as men we do this more often than we know) allow a misrepresentation to continue to let them (in blindness to "who I really am") persist in that delusion...well...I think we all find it then hard _to love _what we _do not_, and _cannot respect._ And _no con man _can respect _his mark_. No one can truly respect...what can be fooled...by him.
> 
> But like chicken and egg it might be hard to discern which comes first. Do con men, or better...are con men...con men...precisely because they cannot, al principio, respect _another_? Or do they _become con men _when discovering how easily the_ whole of the world may be fooled? _And they then (quite wrongly?) occupy that place of "all are fools...except me." (In such pride elevating themselves...above all others...thinking they themselves are not a part of all that _they do see_ "foolable")
> 
> We may come to see something we usually learn quite early..."there's a benefit _to me_ in letting others embrace an illusion of me that brings me affection." But likewise we also learn there's a bristling, an _acute discomfort_ if I allow some to continue to embrace a view of me that causes disdain...of me. Yes, we learn early to play to both the fans...and play against (for the purpose of _victory over_) our detractors. If I show a _victory there (!) _I gain..._more fans!_
> 
> It doesn't take much to see how a man (or maybe _it does take much to see!_) how a man has entered into "playing for a multitude"...(the world)...and basing now his sole "self identification" on how many "likes" he garners. (likes come in many forms...money, fame, out pourings of respect...) But what if he gains...all of a ship of fools? All...acknowledge him as _the bomb_. What must he see his kingdom as...but fools? So easily...duped...by his playing. (What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world...?)
> 
> I mean...I want to be King...but only a concord of fools could make me _one_. And so...my royal reign is tarnished...by knowing, I now have only communing amongst fools. I have won...(O! How I want to be_ the Honcho!_)...but now...I have no one left...to respect. And that means...none...to love. I have _lost all_ in my winning!
> 
> Can there ever be a way out of this..._game_?
> 
> Can the desire for triumph (_proved rightness_, if you will) ever find a place where one is not summarily abandoned there to isolation?
> 
> We so often communicate _in battle, _some we may mark "wins"...others, losses... (are we that unfamiliar with our own "tally sheets"?), and go on, and on.
> We catch glimpses of glint of steel from one another, most often ready to identify swords. (It's _safer to us _to mistake a plowshare for a sword_,_ than be duped the other way round)
> 
> I am learning to seek the one who understands all of the above very well. How he could love and respect man (yet who is so easily and fond of being...duped) enough to tell them the truth about who He is. He knew the pain, the hard place...it would put man in. Comforting lies...or Him? What traitor I would be to deny to abandonment...the one who has never abandoned me.
> 
> But...even as much as I am, or might be repulsed by self identifying as a traitor (and so seek to resist it by _great show_ of fealty)...a greater truth remains that sobers me up _when drunk upon my own preferences_ of how I would like to view myself.
> 
> I cannot diminish Him, anyway. He is...who He says He is. And He will not "play" to win my affections. Or _change_ in care of not losing them.
> 
> He is hard...and narrow...enough to abide true to Himself.
> It's a something I have never seen...before.
> A _true_ man.
> I very much want to know what that's like. I have known well enough (but, have I?)...the other.


1. Have you read the Interracial Marriage thread?
2. "Him", "He" is the source of contention not the solution. If "Him" "He" were as you advertise we wouldn't have these conversations.
3. You have tried to take the conversation away from the blatant absense of "Him","He" when he was a No-Show when a child was made to pose naked on a cross while four priests ogled over him? It is Unbelievable that you are suggesting someone relies on "Him-He" when "Him-He" has been shown to be at worst Unreliable and at best Nonexistent.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> 1. Have you read the Interracial Marriage thread?
> 2. "Him", "He" is the source of contention not the solution. If "Him" "He" were as you advertise we wouldn't have these conversations.
> 3. You have tried to take the conversation away from the blatant absense of "Him","He" when he was a No-Show when a child was made to pose naked on a cross while four priests ogled over him? It is Unbelievable that you are suggesting someone relies on "Him-He" when "Him-He" has been shown to be at worst Unreliable and at best Nonexistent.



Then I must for now be resigned to being unbelievable to you.


It's a far smaller matter than once engaged in _trying to appear_ believable. 

He sees.

There is nothing hidden, except to be revealed. A man is either terrified at that or is seeking the way of peace in it. Either way, a man is given opportunity to "come clean" about his knowledge of the source of evil in the world...or pretend he has had no part with it.


Offenses must come, but woe to the man through whom they come.
How heavy is a millstone around the neck? How much hiding before a man is found in the place that leads him to wish he were never born?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Then I must for now be resigned to being unbelievable to you.
> 
> 
> It's a far smaller matter than once engaged in _trying to appear_ believable.
> 
> He sees.
> 
> There is nothing hidden, except to be revealed. A man is either terrified at that or is seeking the way of peace in it. Either way, a man is given opportunity to "come clean" about his knowledge of the source of evil in the world...or pretend he has had no part with it.
> 
> 
> Offenses must come, but woe to the man through whom they come.
> How heavy is a millstone around the neck? How much hiding before a man is found in the place that leads him to wish he were never born?


Where was Jesus for the thousand children that we are mentioning above?
It sounds as if your excuse is that well he wasn't there then(or he was there then watching it happen but did nothing), but boy is he really gonna wag his finger at the perverts who did those things later.

These children were there FOR Jesus. They were there BECAUSE of Jesus. They got diddled for it with ZERO help from the supposed ultimate helper. And you continue to send others "his" way.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Where was Jesus for the thousand children that we are mentioning above?
> It sounds as if your excuse is that well he wasn't there then(or he was there then watching it happen but did nothing), but boy is he really gonna wag his finger at the perverts who did those things later.
> 
> These children were there FOR Jesus. They were there BECAUSE of Jesus. They got diddled for it with ZERO help from the supposed ultimate helper. And you continue to send others "his" way.



May that be found true in me above all and every other thing



> And you continue to send others "his" way.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> May that be found true in me above all and every other thing


Conveniently Avoiding direct questions is equally as true for you.


----------



## Israel

Jesus is there. The true and faithful witness.

Who is, in this and every instance of unrighteousness, the offended party.
Justice is never far off. Mercy...is nearer.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus is there. The true and faithful witness.
> 
> Who is, in this and every instance of unrighteousness, the offended party.
> Justice is never far off. Mercy...is nearer.


So  you are saying Jesus watches kids be molested and does nothing..and you make excuses for him.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> So  you are saying Jesus watches kids be molested and does nothing..and you make excuses for him.



And he runs  a recruitment service.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> So  you are saying Jesus watches kids be molested and does nothing..and you make excuses for him.


 
No, that's what you surmise by limitation.

Where do you get your notion of justice to accuse one man and excuse another?
Do you...find yourself excused?  And if you do, on what grounds? 

How much "knowledge of the case" in which you feel pressed to judge must be revealed to you before you recuse yourself from sitting in judgment? Of both God...and man? Or...is this sense of justice...found _only in you_?

What is your standing in this suit? Are you the aggrieved party? Who can you drag to the bar with _clean hands in the matter_? Would you like all exposed of _those hands_? What _man_ do you know, do you know of _any_? Or, are you simply the man who says "my hands may not be clean...but...they are cleaner than..."

But...perhaps you do have clean hands! What makes it so? Is it because you are man...or something else? What perfection of justice do you embody? Is it the justice of man...because you are man...or again...are you something else?

Do you think believers in the God above all, naive? Liars? Foolish? Are they men? Or, are they _twisted men? _Come then, enlighten their eyes to what true man is. If it is you. Present yourself...for full examination. Clean hands...and all. Step to the bar and show your worthiness to execute judgment there.

Will you say..."but not all men can see"? Then, on what basis do you accuse the blind?

And if blindness can indeed be in a man, are you then sure you are the man in whom there is none?

Or, are you something...else?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> No, that's what you surmise by limitation.
> 
> Where do you get your notion of justice to accuse one man and excuse another?
> Do you...find yourself excused?  And if you do, on what grounds?
> 
> How much "knowledge of the case" in which you feel pressed to judge must be revealed to you before you recuse yourself from sitting in judgment? Of both God...and man? Or...is this sense of justice...found _only in you_?
> 
> What is your standing in this suit? Are you the aggrieved party? Who can you drag to the bar with _clean hands in the matter_? Would you like all exposed of _those hands_? What _man_ do you know, do you know of _any_? Or, are you simply the man who says "my hands may not be clean...but...they are cleaner than..."
> 
> But...perhaps you do have clean hands! What makes it so? Is it because you are man...or something else? What perfection of justice do you embody? Is it the justice of man...because you are man...or again...are you something else?
> 
> Do you think believers in the God above all, naive? Liars? Foolish? Are they men? Or, are they _twisted men? _Come then, enlighten their eyes to what true man is. If it is you. Present yourself...for full examination. Clean hands...and all. Step to the bar and show your worthiness to execute judgment there.
> 
> Will you say..."but not all men can see"? Then, on what basis do you accuse the blind?
> 
> And if blindness can indeed be in a man, are you then sure you are the man in whom there is none?
> 
> Or, are you something...else?



Please follow along, I am not talking about me or man. I am using what you and many believers tell me when you say that your God/Jesus is All Powerful, All knowing, All seeing, All hearing and above all else...not only active in human lives but makes it a point to literally step in and change the outcome of situations to save people from harm.
I am not accusing any man or excusing any man. I am asking you where your God was when(In just one state alone, not counting worldwide  nor counting it happening hourly by non men of the cloth) 301 Men of the Cloth sexually abused at least 1000 children in the house of your God.

You are telling me that yes Jesus was there for the kids the whole time. You are telling me that yes Jesus watched over them. You are telling me that Jesus let it start, happen and finish but Boy oh Boy is "he" really gonna give the perverts a punishment when they are dead and "he" is gonna make it up to the Children when they are dead.
But I take notice that you have no excuse as to why your god knew, watched and heard it happening and did nothing to stop it. You avoid it at all costs because you will have to admit that "he" don't be. And if "he" be it is not in the capacity or capability that you and others claim.

All that you have written above is a defense mechanism to avoid the obvious. All you ever want to do is talk about your god and when pressed that the facts do not meet your claims you revert back to blaming man for a god that is either incapable, unwilling or nonexistent.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Please follow along, I am not talking about me or man. I am using what you and many believers tell me when you say that your God/Jesus is All Powerful, All knowing, All seeing, All hearing and above all else...not only active in human lives but makes it a point to literally step in and change the outcome of situations to save people from harm.
> I am not accusing any man or excusing any man. I am asking you where your God was when(In just one state alone, not counting worldwide  nor counting it happening hourly by non men of the cloth) 301 Men of the Cloth sexually abused at least 1000 children in the house of your God.
> 
> You are telling me that yes Jesus was there for the kids the whole time. You are telling me that yes Jesus watched over them. You are telling me that Jesus let it start, happen and finish but Boy oh Boy is "he" really gonna give the perverts a punishment when they are dead and "he" is gonna make it up to the Children when they are dead.
> But I take notice that you have no excuse as to why your god knew, watched and heard it happening and did nothing to stop it. You avoid it at all costs because you will have to admit that "he" don't be. And if "he" be it is not in the capacity or capability that you and others claim.
> 
> All that you have written above is a defense mechanism to avoid the obvious. All you ever want to do is talk about your god and when pressed that the facts do not meet your claims you revert back to blaming man for a god that is either incapable, unwilling or nonexistent.



Anything other than utter destruction is grace...and even that could be called a grace.
Can you give thanks for all things?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Anything other than utter destruction is grace...and even that could be called a grace.
> Can you give thanks for all things?


Give thanks to what? Who?

I have zero interest in thanking a deity that steps in for some and not for others, nor any of its followers that makes excuses for it. "Anything other than utter destruction is grace..." With a god like yours that is all you have to hang on?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> ... you revert back to blaming man for a god that is either incapable, unwilling or nonexistent.


I think it would be accurate to say that God is "unwilling" in one sense, in that He is unwilling to accede to Bullet's demands.

No, they are not claims made by his followers — they are yours.


----------



## Israel

When I tell you I have believed this...and found it proved true to me, do you see?

However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. What kind of house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or where will My place of repose be? 

And this

"no longer on this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem..."

Matters of cloth, and houses, holy garb and the like, kissing of rings and ritual blessing of Howitzers are meaningless to my understanding. I withhold what might appear as a less than kind estimation of such. But you may, if you care to understand, lump also vows of poverty, of chastity, (most all and any vow and oath to a securing of favor, or even as proper response to it) rituals, obeisances and genuflections _imposed. _Creeds formulated and repetitious vocalizations as part and proof of observance, I no longer receive. And what promotes such as salubrious to the soul, I have no place for.

You may add the presumption of hanging the word "church" by placard, bill, in yellow page listing, handout or flyer, chiseled into stone or painted on cardboard in reference to some edifice...or some (legally and corporately) recognized organization of man.

_So..._what you may call to my attention as representing _my God, _then, I would not have you, nor care to leave you in such misapprehension.

You infer from nothing I have said, that Christ's judgment must wait until a certain time...specifically and only revealed...after the death of the body. I have neither implied nor said this. There are many forms judgment may take, and many meted out to the end that mercy might be sought. And found. This...is also...mercy itself.


Because there is an eternal judgment, some may be sobered to its reality by a temporal imposition to an acute awareness that nothing is hidden from the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Nevertheless, we are also told that some will continue to _shake a fist_ at Heaven, despite. So be it.

And yes...those who would take the Lord's name do come with a right trembling to embrace:
Search me O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting.

I dare say users of that name for their own advantage may also be sobered up.

And I too believe I have suffered a needed intervention.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I think it would be accurate to say that God is "unwilling" in one sense, in that He is unwilling to accede to Bullet's demands.
> 
> No, they are not claims made by his followers — they are yours.


Oh come on Hummer, lets be honest here.
Because I have misunderstood you before, I want to confirm -
Are you saying it is NOT a tenet of Christianity that God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent??
That is the basis for Bullet's entire argument so if its not true then yeah they are "his" claims.
If it is true then his argument is rock solid and theres no way around it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Give thanks to what? Who?
> 
> I have zero interest in thanking a deity that steps in for some and not for others, nor any of its followers that makes excuses for it. "Anything other than utter destruction is grace..." With a god like yours that is all you have to hang on?



What if He steps in for all, just not in the ways YOU would have Him step in?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What if He steps in for all, just not in the ways YOU would have Him step in?


I guarandarntee if it was one of your kids you would either just shutup or quit making these disgusting workarounds.
But maybe Im wrong.


----------



## bullethead

On


hummerpoo said:


> I think it would be accurate to say that God is "unwilling" in one sense, in that He is unwilling to accede to Bullet's demands.
> 
> No, they are not claims made by his followers — they are yours.


I'll add that to the list of no show excuses but in the mean time I was not among the thousand being molested in his house by his clergy...yet he, despite believers claims, was also unwilling(unable is an option also) to answer their pleas and prayers to help them.

I don't care where god is concerning me, I don't ask anything or expect anything from an invisible being created by man. I am not demanding Raggedy Andy answers to me. I am asking his followers who claim to know all about their god and speak for him too...why this god of theirs was a no show a thousand times. Not just once or twice like he missed one or two because he was making guiderails disappear just before vaporizing another one of his fans skulls or letting 119 die in a jet crash because he saved the 120th, but a thousand kids in his churches who were there to be closer to god...and that is just a starting number.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What if He steps in for all, just not in the ways YOU would have Him step in?


Evidence does not match your claims.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> When I tell you I have believed this...and found it proved true to me, do you see?
> 
> However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. What kind of house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or where will My place of repose be?
> 
> And this
> 
> "no longer on this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem..."
> 
> Matters of cloth, and houses, holy garb and the like, kissing of rings and ritual blessing of Howitzers are meaningless to my understanding. I withhold what might appear as a less than kind estimation of such. But you may, if you care to understand, lump also vows of poverty, of chastity, (most all and any vow and oath to a securing of favor, or even as proper response to it) rituals, obeisances and genuflections _imposed. _Creeds formulated and repetitious vocalizations as part and proof of observance, I no longer receive. And what promotes such as salubrious to the soul, I have no place for.
> 
> You may add the presumption of hanging the word "church" by placard, bill, in yellow page listing, handout or flyer, chiseled into stone or painted on cardboard in reference to some edifice...or some (legally and corporately) recognized organization of man.
> 
> _So..._what you may call to my attention as representing _my God, _then, I would not have you, nor care to leave you in such misapprehension.
> 
> You infer from nothing I have said, that Christ's judgment must wait until a certain time...specifically and only revealed...after the death of the body. I have neither implied nor said this. There are many forms judgment may take, and many meted out to the end that mercy might be sought. And found. This...is also...mercy itself.
> 
> 
> Because there is an eternal judgment, some may be sobered to its reality by a temporal imposition to an acute awareness that nothing is hidden from the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Nevertheless, we are also told that some will continue to _shake a fist_ at Heaven, despite. So be it.
> 
> And yes...those who would take the Lord's name do come with a right trembling to embrace:
> Search me O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting.
> 
> I dare say users of that name for their own advantage may also be sobered up.
> 
> And I too believe I have suffered a needed intervention.



Well since you say many things (or don't) and then contradict yourself(or not) you (or another believer, or not, or maybe, possibly one but many more minus the fraction, times the majority) has eluded to the claim that the perpetrators will answer to Jesus at death and the children will be rewarded at death. So, picking through your pile scatters some flies but it is hard(or not) to find the undigested morsels that make it clear what you are trying to say.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I guarandarntee if it was one of your kids you would either just shutup or quit making these disgusting workarounds.
> But maybe Im wrong.


Certainly is thought provoking that there is actually some doubt about how he would react.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Oh come on Hummer, lets be honest here.
> Because I have misunderstood you before, I want to confirm -
> Are you saying it is NOT a tenet of Christianity that God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent??
> That is the basis for Bullet's entire argument so if its not true then yeah they are "his" claims.
> If it is true then his argument is rock solid and theres no way around it.


Right.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> I guarandarntee if it was one of your kids you would either just shutup or quit making these disgusting workarounds.
> But maybe Im wrong.



It would be interesting to hear how the parents of these kids  explain to the children their god’s involvement in what happened to them..


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Oh come on Hummer, lets be honest here.


Am I lying?



> Because I have misunderstood you before, I want to confirm -
> Are you saying it is NOT a tenet of Christianity that God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent??


No.



> That is the basis for Bullet's entire argument so if its not true then yeah they are "his" claims.
> If it is true then his argument is rock solid and theres no way around it.


I don't agree.





bullethead said:


> ,,, I am asking his followers who claim to know all about their god and speak for him too ...


Could be your problem.  Maybe you are asking your questions the wrong place; they're all idiots just like His detractors.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Am I lying?
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> I don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could be your problem.  Maybe you are asking your questions the wrong place; they're all idiots just like His detractors.


Since that was who I am asking...and since YOU answered....welcome to "I" club.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Walt1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the basis for Bullet's entire argument so if its not true then yeah they are "his" claims.
> If it is true then his argument is rock solid and theres no way around it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree.
Click to expand...


To which part?
And, are you able to point out why you do not agree?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> On
> 
> I'll add that to the list of no show excuses but in the mean time I was not among the thousand being molested in his house by his clergy...yet he, despite believers claims, was also unwilling(unable is an option also) to answer their pleas and prayers to help them.



This is almost funny. It's not unlike a variation of the inquisition...sort of a reverse (maybe a 167.5538 degree turn...not a full 180)

One has to accept that the god you don't believe in is fully represented according to your understanding of he who is not, is that same and only god (who isn't) that is represented by some robed men in some brick and mortar place.


Some of you guys claim to have some issue with religion...I really don't believe you do.
You just can't see past it. 

You're really quite dyed in the wool.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> This is almost funny. It's not unlike a variation of the inquisition...sort of a reverse (maybe a 167.5538 degree turn...not a full 180)
> 
> One has to accept that the god you don't believe in is fully represented according to your understanding of he who is not, is that same and only god (who isn't) that is represented by some robed men in some brick and mortar place.
> 
> 
> Some of you guys claim to have some issue with religion...I really don't believe you do.
> You just can't see past it.
> 
> You're really quite dyed in the wool.


Now Izzy, I had stated long ago in this thread that for the sake of the conversation I was going to use what believers said about their god as my basis.
Nice try, but I was ahead of you before you started. All you had to do was read the thread before you posted but than again maybe you did and continue wrongly anyway just to type something..anything, even if incorrect hoping no one catches it or to just avoid answering for your gods inaction.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Since that was who I am asking...and since YOU answered....welcome to "I" club.


No reason to assume differently.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> To which part?
> And, are you able to point out why you do not agree?


Almost missed this one; hummer said Walt said threw me.

Your argument is based on you being more scient than God.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Almost missed this one; hummer said Walt said threw me.
> 
> Your argument is based on you being more scient than God.


I would say it is based off of me thinking rationally and trying to discuss it with people who exist and may be able to answer me back. I've tried to ask God/Gods but get zero answers despite their supposed capabilities.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I would say it is based off of me thinking rationally and trying to discuss it with people who exist and may be able to answer me back. I've tried to ask God/Gods but get zero answers despite their supposed capabilities.


For the first sentence I think my #310 has to be kept in mind.  It doesn't rule out productive communication, IF we just remember that we are all in that boat.

As to the second: many people have been surprised when the unbelievable reached out and slapped them right in the face.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> For the first sentence I think my #310 has to be kept in mind.  It doesn't rule out productive communication, IF we just remember that we are all in that boat.
> 
> As to the second: many people have been surprised when the unbelievable reached out and slapped them right in the face.





hummerpoo said:


> For the first sentence I think my #310 has to be kept in mind.  It doesn't rule out productive communication, IF we just remember that we are all in that boat.
> 
> As to the second: many people have been surprised when the unbelievable reached out and slapped them right in the face.


There are so many people around the world that have gotten smacked by so many different unbelievables that the odds of it happening to me possibly multiple times by multiple unbelievables seem quite good. I hope when it happens that I know which one it is.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> There are so many people around the world that have gotten smacked by so many different unbelievables that the odds of it happening to me possibly multiple times by multiple unbelievables seem quite good. I hope when it happens that I know which one it is.


IF my experience has led me to anything close to accurate, you won't be worried about which one.  Maybe later, maybe not; It's a wonderful life, never boring.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> IF my experience has led me to anything close to accurate, you won't be worried about which one.  Maybe later, maybe not; It's a wonderful life, never boring.


I can appreciate that, but people all over the world say something similar.

Which brings us back to:
Why did your god step in and interact with you and not 1000 children who were being molested by Priests?


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> One possible answer is one Bullet gave -
> Despite the fact you believe he exists.... he doesn't and therefore cannot/did not intervene.
> Obviously to you that is not going to be an acceptable possibility. But until God is proven to exist its a legitimate possibility.
> Bullet also gave another possible answer - God CHOSE not to intervene. If God chose not to intervene..... well even you said the diddler would be 60 ozs. heavier if it was you that caught him.
> 
> One of the questions you have is why God does or does not intervene. That means you don't know why. If you don't why, you cant reject the possible answers that you don't like.


There are many reasons. One right off my head is honoring your wife so your prayers are not hindered.

I do have questions, but those in no way are indicators of God being non existent. The proven to exist works the same way as not being able to disprove. The possibility is there until either can prove.

Not knowing is ok, it only means not yet discovered in the science world.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> There are many reasons. One right off my head is honoring your wife so your prayers are not hindered.
> 
> I do have questions, but those in no way are indicators of God being non existent. The proven to exist works the same way as not being able to disprove. The possibility is there until either can prove.


So, is it safe to say that you leave the door open to the possibility of a Flying Spaghetti Monster existing because nobody has proven that it doesn't? If no, why not.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> So, is it safe to say that you leave the door open to the possibility of a Flying Spaghetti Monster existing because nobody has proven that it doesn't? If no, why not.


It is safe to say that I simply don't believe it. I cant know it is not there until I prove that without a doubt or possibility.

What I am saying is leaving the possibility open that God does not exist because what appears to you, and sometimes me at times, that God does not intervene is not proof that he does not exist means I would have to ignore the many times where I had prayers answered and some immediately that you, science, doctors or just nature itself have no explanation for. If it was coincidence, it sure seems to coincide many times at the right moment only when prayer is involved.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I can appreciate that, but people all over the world say something similar.
> 
> Which brings us back to:
> Why did your god step in and interact with you


I don't know.  I know I didn't willfully initiate it.




> and not 1000 children who were being molested by Priests?


I don't think we know that He didn't, isn't, or won't.  If we did know, either positive or negative, I don't know that we could hold together, intellectually, the thousands, upon thousands, upon thousand of pieces of that puzzle.  Yes, He could give us just a few explanatory pieces, but He chose to let us know that He has it all covered for good (which He is under no obligation to do)— through Habakkuk's oracle, as an example of many.  Even what I've said does not rule out that He is doing something, related to that situation, right under our noses, or somebodies nose, and we don't recognize it.

If that raises your hackles, and I suspect it does, just remember that your talking with another idiot.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know.  I know I didn't willfully initiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we know that He didn't, isn't, or won't.  If we did know, either positive or negative, I don't know that we could hold together, intellectually, the thousands, upon thousands, upon thousand of pieces of that puzzle.  Yes, He could give us just a few explanatory pieces, but He chose to let us know that He has it all covered for good (which He is under no obligation to do)— through Habakkuk's oracle, as an example of many.  Even what I've said does not rule out that He is doing something, related to that situation, right under our noses, or somebodies nose, and we don't recognize it.
> 
> If that raises your hackles, and I suspect it does, just remember that your talking with another idiot.


Even an idiot knows an omni-everything god could have stopped it BAM right then. Not next week, not after death, not some day.


> I don't think we know that He didn't


Yes we do know. It didn't stop. That means it wasn't stopped.
Not to mention an omni-everything god could have stopped it when "yeah Im gonna do this" was just a mere thought in these priests head.
Although I don't believe gods exist I do try to be understanding about why people believe in gods.
But this excuse making, workarounds and we don't recognize it...… is just crap.
Self serving crap. Its selfishness of the highest order.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> It is safe to say that I simply don't believe it. I cant know it is not there until I prove that without a doubt or possibility.
> 
> What I am saying is leaving the possibility open that God does not exist because what appears to you, and sometimes me at times, that God does not intervene is not proof that he does not exist means I would have to ignore the many times where I had prayers answered and some immediately that you, science, doctors or just nature itself have no explanation for. If it was coincidence, it sure seems to coincide many times at the right moment only when prayer is involved.


Again, I revert back to why did you have prayers answered immediately(I'd love to know the details if you don't mind sharing) but these children who prayed while being molested and prayed to not get repeatedly molested did not have their prayers answered?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I don't know.  I know I didn't willfully initiate it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we know that He didn't, isn't, or won't.  If we did know, either positive or negative, I don't know that we could hold together, intellectually, the thousands, upon thousands, upon thousand of pieces of that puzzle.  Yes, He could give us just a few explanatory pieces, but He chose to let us know that He has it all covered for good (which He is under no obligation to do)— through Habakkuk's oracle, as an example of many.  Even what I've said does not rule out that He is doing something, related to that situation, right under our noses, or somebodies nose, and we don't recognize it.
> 
> If that raises your hackles, and I suspect it does, just remember that your talking with another idiot.


Why would it raise my hackles? How do you know what "he" chose or chooses?
Wouldn't the victim recognize it if "he" did something? It didn't stop and that is darn good proof that "he" did nothing.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Even an idiot knows an omni-everything god could have stopped it BAM right then. Not next week, not after death, not some day.
> 
> Yes we do know. It didn't stop. That means it wasn't stopped.
> Not to mention an omni-everything god could have stopped it when "yeah Im gonna do this" was just a mere thought in these priests head.
> Although I don't believe gods exist I do try to be understanding about why people believe in gods.
> But this excuse making, workarounds and we don't recognize it...… is just crap.
> Self serving crap. Its selfishness of the highest order.





bullethead said:


> Why would it raise my hackles? How do you know what "he" chose or chooses?
> Wouldn't the victim recognize it if "he" did something? It didn't stop and that is darn good proof that "he" did nothing.



You guys are spooky.
You know things about people that you've never met, and can project intimate details between individuals, read the hearts and minds of people you only read about; I'll never catch up.


----------



## ky55

hummerpoo said:


> You guys are spooky.
> You know things about people that you've never met, and can project intimate details between individuals, read the hearts and minds of people you only read about; I'll never catch up.



You guys are spooky. 
You know the mind of a god.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> You guys are spooky.
> You know things about people that you've never met, and can project intimate details between individuals, read the hearts and minds of people you only read about; I'll never catch up.


You do the same about a God.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> You guys are spooky.
> You know things about people that you've never met, and can project intimate details between individuals, read the hearts and minds of people you only read about; I'll never catch up.


I cannot help but notice the absence of victims testifying how God stepped in and did something. I don't need to read minds when the facts are available.


> National*Prosecutor: Priests ‘weaponized' the faith to abuse kids*
> 
> By:
> 
> MARK SCOLFORO
> *Updated:* Aug 16, 2018 06:25
> Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, at podium, speaks during a news conference at the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018.  (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
> 
> 
> HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Roman Catholic priests across Pennsylvania used religious rituals, symbols of the faith and the threat of eternity in **** to groom, molest and rape children, a grand jury found, in what the state’s top prosecutor called the “weaponization of faith.”
> An 884-page report on the statewide grand jury’s investigation, released Tuesday, detailed how “predator priests” used the children’s own religious faith and trust in them as religious leaders to victimize and then silence them.
> One priest tied up a victim with rope in the confessional in a “praying position,” the grand jury wrote. When the victim refused to perform sex, the angered priest used a 7-inch crucifix to sexually assault him, the report said.
> Another victim recounted how a priest used a metal cross to beat him.
> At a parish rectory, the report said, four of the priests made a boy strip and pose as Jesus on the cross while they took photos.
> “He stated that all of them giggled and stated that the pictures would be used as a reference for new religious statues for the parishes,” the jury wrote. Two of those priests later did jail time for sexually assaulting two altar boys.
> Another priest told a boy he was fondling that it was OK because he was “an instrument of God.”
> Priests also found in the sacrament of confession the opportunity to perpetrate acts against children, the report said.
> The investigation of six of Pennsylvania’s eight dioceses— Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Scranton — is the most extensive investigation of Catholic clergy abuse by any state, according to victims’ advocates. More than 1,000 children — and possibly many more — were molested since the 1940s, the report said.
> The dioceses represent about 1.7 million Catholics.
> The Philadelphia Archdiocese and the Johnstown-Altoona Diocese were not included in the probe because they have been the subject of three previous scathing grand jury investigations.
> Diocese leaders on Tuesday expressed sorrow for the victims and unveiled, for the first time, a list of priests accused of some sort of sexual misconduct.
> “Predators in every diocese weaponized the Catholic faith and used it as a tool of their abuse,” Attorney General Josh Shapiro said at a news conference Tuesday unveiling the grand jury’s report, which documented allegations against 301 priests over seven decades.
> Only two of the priests have been charged with crimes as a result of the grand jury investigation, though a number were prosecuted in years past. Over 100 have died, and many others have retired.
> Church leaders say most of the offenses occurred some time in the past and note that major reforms were adopted starting in 2002 to safeguard children.
> Terence McKiernan, president of the watchdog group BishopAccountability.org, said the ritualization of abuse was a fundamental part of how children were sexually exploited.
> “Even when the Catholic rituals and doctrines are not specifically mobilized by the priest, they are in play,” he said.
> Threats of eternal ****ation were not uncommon, the grand jury found. Priests told children they would “go to ****” if they told anyone what happened and “nobody would believe a lying child over a man of God’s word.”
> One priest was quoted as telling altar boys they should serve naked beneath their cassocks “because God did not want any man-made clothes to be worn next to their skin during Mass,” the jury wrote.
> In one church, a priest told a boy who confided he had been gang-raped as a 7-year-old that he had to provide sex to get to heaven. He would then be molested for three years before the priest was transferred.
> In a case highlighted on the day the grand jury report was made public, a priest rinsed a boy’s mouth with holy water after abusing him.
> The predator priests used any opportunity they could to molest children while they had them alone, the investigation found. Several priests used hypnosis during counseling sessions to manipulate their victims. Helping a priest grade papers in his rectory somehow became a session of nude weightlifting. One boy was abused when he went to collect his report card from school.
> When a bishop asked the Vatican to remove a priest who used physical force and threats to abuse children, the bishop noted the priest “invoked the name of God to justify his actions against his victims while using their faith and the priesthood to manipulate them and secure their silence.” Parishioners were never told why he was removed in 2006.
> The grand jurors pointedly wrote that the investigation was not an attack on the faith, noting many are Catholics themselves.
> “People of all faiths and of no faith want their children to be safe,” the grand jurors wrote. “But we were presented with a conspicuous concentration of child sex abuse cases that have come from the church.”


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> You guys are spooky.
> You know things about people that you've never met, and can project intimate details between individuals, read the hearts and minds of people you only read about; I'll never catch up.


Perfect example.
Omni-everything god according to Christian beliefs.
Pedo priests victimizing innocents for years on end.
We point out the undeniable fact that the omni-everything god could have stopped it before or during or after it happened even once.
And we are the spooky ones.
I cant even think of a word that describes that sort of mind set.


----------



## Israel

Yes. God could stop all evil doing summarily and quite completely in some way apart from the cross of Christ. And none would be here to either approve, nor be offended by His work.

Thanks be to God for His bearing of offense, revealed through Jesus Christ. And that His power is yielded to the goodness of His nature.

Happy is the man who finds no offense in his being. Blessed is the man who finds no offense in Him. In His being.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Perfect example.
> Omni-everything god according to Christian beliefs.
> Pedo priests victimizing innocents for years on end.
> We point out the undeniable fact that the omni-everything god could have stopped it before or during or after it happened even once.
> And we are the spooky ones.
> I cant even think of a word that describes that sort of mind set.


Fanatical Zealot(s)
#334 included


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Again, I revert back to why did you have prayers answered immediately(I'd love to know the details if you don't mind sharing) but these children who prayed while being molested and prayed to not get repeatedly molested did not have their prayers answered?


Maybe I’m not cherry picking a couple of  scriptures and am taking all of the context together???

I won’t answer as to why these children got molested while praying they wouldn’t, to be honest, I haven’t read the articles in full to even know that they were praying.

But, I once knew an alcoholic that prayed daily for deliverance while sitting at the stool.

I get your point, “why does he not step in some times”. We don’t know that he’s not. Is the overall outcome determined by what you want it to be? If so, I imagine it appears that he doesn’t step in.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Maybe I’m not cherry picking a couple of  scriptures and am taking all of the context together???
> 
> I won’t answer as to why these children got molested while praying they wouldn’t, to be honest, I haven’t read the articles in full to even know that they were praying.
> 
> But, I once knew an alcoholic that prayed daily for deliverance while sitting at the stool.
> 
> I get your point, “why does he not step in some times”. We don’t know that he’s not. Is the overall outcome determined by what you want it to be? If so, I imagine it appears that he doesn’t step in.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nsylvania-abuse-report-does-not-close-n900971
From another article:
"A Catholic priest who sexually abused “maybe 20” boys was instructed to say prayers to repent for his crimes.

The 95-year-old admitted to molesting boys on Guam, a US island in the Pacific, and said he “got the impression that kids liked it”.


According to Mr Brouillard, other Church members at the time knew about the abuse but they did not tell him to stop. Instead they told him to pray."


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Maybe I’m not cherry picking a couple of  scriptures and am taking all of the context together???
> 
> I won’t answer as to why these children got molested while praying they wouldn’t, to be honest, I haven’t read the articles in full to even know that they were praying.
> 
> But, I once knew an alcoholic that prayed daily for deliverance while sitting at the stool.
> 
> I get your point, “why does he not step in some times”. We don’t know that he’s not. Is the overall outcome determined by what you want it to be? If so, I imagine it appears that he doesn’t step in.


Not once did a victim say that he/she felt a godlike force and the abuse stopped before it began. There is no mention of a victim coming forward saying that they felt the presence of God and they were safe. On the contrary, the Priests told some of them that this is what God wants....


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nsylvania-abuse-report-does-not-close-n900971
> From another article:
> "A Catholic priest who sexually abused “maybe 20” boys was instructed to say prayers to repent for his crimes.
> 
> The 95-year-old admitted to molesting boys on Guam, a US island in the Pacific, and said he “got the impression that kids liked it”.
> 
> 
> According to Mr Brouillard, other Church members at the time knew about the abuse but they did not tell him to stop. Instead they told him to pray."


I think you just identified the problem. It isn't God though.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Not once did a victim say that he/she felt a godlike force and the abuse stopped before it began. There is no mention of a victim coming forward saying that they felt the presence of God and they were safe. On the contrary, the Priests told some of them that this is what God wants....



This is a great example of brainwashing folks and taking advantage of them. No different than selling fake insurance policies. It doesn't make the real ones fake.

I would be surprised that any of the victims even had a reason to pray for it stop if they’re taught that this is what God wants.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I think you just identified the problem. It isn't God though.


We all know what the problem is. It was the solution that has been missing. No savior. No knight in shining armor. No one to help. No one to answer the pleas and prayers.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> This is a great example of brainwashing folks and taking advantage of them. No different than selling fake insurance policies. It doesn't make the real ones fake.
> 
> I would be surprised that any of the victims even had a reason to pray for it stop if they’re taught that this is what God wants.


Wow! Just wow.

Doesn't your god help children that are being molested by fake priests? The children are real and felt that god was real too. But I guess they got what was coming to them for falling for it huh Spotlite...


----------



## gemcgrew

Wait, are you telling me that unbelievers place the welfare of children above their reverence of God? 

Don't they do the same thing with kittens and puppies?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Wait, are you telling me that unbelievers place the welfare of children above their reverence of God?
> 
> Don't they do the same thing with kittens and puppies?


I know right?
Putting priority of things that in fact exist over something that may or may not.
Shame on us.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> We all know what the problem is. It was the solution that has been missing. No savior. No knight in shining armor. No one to help. No one to answer the pleas and prayers.


That is alone, your surmising.
And how alone one is in it.
You needn't be.
The Savior is.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I guarandarntee if it was one of your kids you would either just shutup or quit making these disgusting workarounds.
> But maybe Im wrong.



You remind me of Job's wife. "Just curse God and die".

God is the One I would run to for my help and strength in this situation. He makes all the crooked ways straight.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You remind me of Job's wife. "Just curse God and die".
> 
> God is the One I would run to for my help and strength in this situation. He makes all the crooked ways straight.


You quoted what I said, which does NOT contain the word God anywhere in it, does not refer to God in any manner and in fact was obviously directed at YOU and what YOU said...……..
And I remind you of somebody who said "curse God".

Okey dokey.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> That is alone, your surmising.
> And how alone one is in it.
> You needn't be.
> The Savior is.


I go with the evidence.
Tell me what Jesus did for these children.
 And I don't mean regurgitate some  verse that is a one size fits all on the infomercial but never shows up in the mail when ordered. 

The hollow claims have got to stop. Jesus didn't help these kids, god didn't help these kids, Holy Casper didn't help these kids. If one of them can make a guy stop boozin surely they can stop a priest from molesting a kid instead of sitting around and watching it happen One Thousand times in Pa alone. The Catholoc archives show 17,000 instances of abuse in the papers that were accessed. 
Saviors Save
Heroes Act
Your god did neither.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You remind me of Job's wife. "Just curse God and die".
> 
> God is the One I would run to for my help and strength in this situation. He makes all the crooked ways straight.


You are more worthy than children.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> You are more worthy than children.


Apparently they weren't one of the self proclaimed "Elect" and therefore pedo fodder.


----------



## Israel

Yes, hollow claims have to stop.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently they weren't one of the self proclaimed "Elect" and therefore pedo fodder.


Destined to be diddled in the big book of life. The grand plan.

It has got to be a form of Stockholm Syndrome for someone to be able to use Predestination to not only overlook atrocities, but justify the atrocities while claiming how loving their captor....err god is.

We constantly hear how all powerful a god is. How compassionate Jesus is. How both step in to answer prayers.
And when the evidence shows that NONE of that is true...
They change their tune to it being the victims fault.
The victims were not worthy of gods help. The victims were not molested by "real" priests so while god was there..he cant be expected to help.

When I make my point about their claims about an Omniscient and Omnipotent god doing nothing to stop the acts in Gods house..they avoid the fact that god did nothing and reply that the "church" I am talking about is just a brick and mortar building ...as if they got me on a technicality because I wasn't talking about the spiritual church. And despite these ordained priests conducting tens of thousands of official rituals that are deemed "legal" by the Church (therefore acknowledged by God and accepted by God because lets face it,  God "should" know who is a real priest and who is not.. but again is either incapable or unwilling to get rid of them because they mostly do his work)...Once it is shown that God let these things happen by his guys under his watch, the excuse that "well bullethead...I have my questions too, but see how I am going to sleep at night is that I am going to convince myself that theae priests are not "REAL" priests therefore God is not obligated to step in and help children that are abused and molested by these non "REAL" priests."
In the minds of these types of believers they are able to convince themselves that despite what they tell us daily about their God , when those claims are shown to be false, they always have an out...and excuse to let an Unwilling, Incapable or NonExistent god off the hook...and then in the very next sentence they are right back to claiming the very things that were shown not to be true.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yes, hollow claims have to stop.


Along with Holy claims


----------



## Israel

You have shown nothing but that man can exist in depravity. You only serve to prove by your much speaking that _even you _have a hope of its ceasing.
But, you do not know the way.
You know you cannot stop it even were you given authority and power to stop every mouth that confesses Christ.
Do you imagine yourself the great myth buster? The lord of truth to man?
Then tell man your truth...that all men are liars, connivers, advantage seeking of self, manufacturers of tales to beguile the simple, of such self inflatable ego to consume the whole of the universe and push out all else. 

Do you think you will be able to _spare your friends_?

Oh yes...Christ troubles the world. Yes, God troubles the world. He makes it to rage at Himself in wretched anger and desperate deceit.

You who have summed up so many in your knowing, your deep wisdom, so that Christ does not escape, nor even a smaller one as Paul can slip through your net. You even know all the _why of him_. And have said so. _You _have _seen_ his motive.

tell us O! man, what you know of man...then show us O! man, what you will be able to bear, and how you will, after you have done so.

Let us see what price you are willing to pay for your word.

(wait, is this being spoken to you, or me?)


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You quoted what I said, which does NOT contain the word God anywhere in it, does not refer to God in any manner and in fact was obviously directed at YOU and what YOU said...……..
> And I remind you of somebody who said "curse God".
> 
> Okey dokey.


At some point we forget a few of the who we are dealing with in here.

They will interject god where absolutely none was inferred or needed just for a chance to include "him" and then in the next sentence try to keep the very god that they constantly want to include OUT of the EXACT instances that they claim "he" constantly involves himself in.


----------



## gemcgrew

Israel said:


> (wait, is this being spoken to you, or me?)


To some and for some.

From my point of view.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> At some point we forget a few of the who we are dealing with in here.
> 
> They will interject god where absolutely none was inferred or needed just for a chance to include "him" and then in the next sentence try to keep the very god that they constantly want to include OUT of the EXACT instances that they claim "he" constantly involves himself in.


Its a defense/avoidance mechanism.
"I don't have to look at me if I can flip it around to you are attacking God".


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Its a defense/avoidance mechanism.
> "I don't have to look at me if I can flip it around to you are attacking God".


Is that your defense or admission?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Maybe I’m not cherry picking a couple of  scriptures and am taking all of the context together???
> 
> I won’t answer as to why these children got molested while praying they wouldn’t, to be honest, I haven’t read the articles in full to even know that they were praying.
> 
> But, I once knew an alcoholic that prayed daily for deliverance while sitting at the stool.
> 
> I get your point, “why does he not step in some times”. We don’t know that he’s not. Is the overall outcome determined by what you want it to be? If so, I imagine it appears that he doesn’t step in.



The outcome must necessarily reflect the desires of the Sovereign Lord of The Universe.  It was His plan for those children to be molested.  I can honestly see the comfort that believing that provides believers.  Perhaps it brings comfort to the molested children........Yuck.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Is that your defense or admission?


Neither.
Read the thread.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> The outcome must necessarily reflect the desires of the Sovereign Lord of The Universe.  It was His plan for those children to be molested.  I can honestly see the comfort that believing that provides believers.  Perhaps it brings comfort to the molested children........Yuck.



it hasn't in any of the victim interviews Ive seen.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You have shown nothing but that man can exist in depravity. You only serve to prove by your much speaking that _even you _have a hope of its ceasing.


I am realistic that life is tough and there is no invisible buddy to help.



Israel said:


> But, you do not know the way.


The way to what? I am not singing the song asking how to get to Sesame Street. I am telling you that there is no Sesame Street.



Israel said:


> You know you cannot stop it even were you given authority and power to stop every mouth that confesses Christ.


I have no intentions of stopping every mouth that thinks some 2000 year old dead preacher is running things. I just like to point out to people who come in here and make claims that their claims are false and I ask them to explain why what they claim and what really happens does not match.



Israel said:


> Do you imagine yourself the great myth buster? The lord of truth to man?


No, like you do with other people who may be a little more outspoken, You give me these titles. You elevate my simple and accurate observations to another level because you cannot refute them. You make me out to be more than what I am for theatrical effect.



Israel said:


> Then tell man your truth...that all men are liars, connivers, advantage seeking of self, manufacturers of tales to beguile the simple, of such self inflatable ego to consume the whole of the universe and push out all else.


Um where have you been? That is pretty much what I do in here. Just not on the grand scale that you need to make it seem. I keep it to a small audience.



Israel said:


> Do you think you will be able to _spare your friends_?


Spare them from what? 
I think that I tend to expose the truth against false claims. Who ever hears it is an added bonus.


(Insert signature assertive and unprovable claim here)


Israel said:


> Oh yes...Christ troubles the world. Yes, God troubles the world. He makes it to rage at Himself in wretched anger and desperate deceit.


God and the Jeeze seem an awful lot like the character you would pen for yourself.




Israel said:


> You who have summed up so many in your knowing, your deep wisdom, so that Christ does not escape, nor even a smaller one as Paul can slip through your net. You even know all the _why of him_. And have said so. _You _have _seen_ his motive.


Thank you, I try to be thorough

(Insert signature theatrical dramatics for effect)


Israel said:


> tell us O! man, what you know of man...then show us O! man, what you will be able to bear, and how you will, after you have done so.





Israel said:


> Let us see what price you are willing to pay for your word.


Nobody will see anything. I'll be dead and unable to tell you. You'll be dead and unable to know.



Israel said:


> (wait, is this being spoken to you, or me?)


Since you write To, For and About yourself and ask questions for the sole purpose of opening the door to a statement that you want to make because NOBODY else will bring it up....We all know that the entire time your post was to yourself.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Neither.
> Read the thread.


I am up to date, just not very invested in it. 

Thanks.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Is that your defense or admission?


It would be an Observation


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> You have shown nothing but that man can exist in depravity. You only serve to prove by your much speaking that _even you _have a hope of its ceasing.
> But, you do not know the way.
> You know you cannot stop it even were you given authority and power to stop every mouth that confesses Christ.
> Do you imagine yourself the great myth buster? The lord of truth to man?
> Then tell man your truth...that all men are liars, connivers, advantage seeking of self, manufacturers of tales to beguile the simple, of such self inflatable ego to consume the whole of the universe and push out all else.



Including the men who wrote the Bible and created all other manner of religious texts.  Sometimes they did it for a good reason.  They made up boogey men scare people into doing good; to keep order.  They made up the stories to quell the anxiety that arises from existential dilemma.  If there's any truth to the notion of Predestination it's in the fact that perhaps some people need that kind of explanation.  Perhaps they're incapable of any other kind of resolution.  I think better of my fellow man.  I think resolution need not require any supernatural invocation.  




Israel said:


> Do you think you will be able to _spare your friends_?
> 
> Oh yes...Christ troubles the world. Yes, God troubles the world. He makes it to rage at Himself in wretched anger and desperate deceit.
> 
> You who have summed up so many in your knowing, your deep wisdom, so that Christ does not escape, nor even a smaller one as Paul can slip through your net. You even know all the _why of him_. And have said so. _You _have _seen_ his motive.
> 
> tell us O! man, what you know of man...then show us O! man, what you will be able to bear, and how you will, after you have done so.
> 
> Let us see what price you are willing to pay for your word.
> 
> (wait, is this being spoken to you, or me?)



Yes, I can spare my friends and my family.  I can spare them the burden of having to maintain a position that's irrational.  They will be burdened by other things as a result but hopefully most of them will benefit from the trade offs.  If I didn't think it was best for me and my community and the world I wouldn't be a proponent of it.




gemcgrew said:


> To some and for some.
> 
> From my point of view.



I fully understand how you got to your position.  Do you ever consider the possibility that though you "feel" elect that you might not actually be?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I fully understand how you got to your position.  Do you ever consider the possibility that though you "feel" elect that you might not actually be?


I don't feel elect. I challenge it daily.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> It would be an Observation


And we all know how reliable observations are.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> And we all know how reliable observations are.


Compared to ???? Point of views???


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Wow! Just wow.
> 
> Doesn't your god help children that are being molested by fake priests? The children are real and felt that god was real too. But I guess they got what was coming to them for falling for it huh Spotlite...


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I go with the evidence.
> Tell me what Jesus did for .


No you don't. You have heard countless accounts and still dont believe. Biased opinions override evidence all day long.



bullethead said:


> The Catholoc archives show 17,000 instances of abuse in the papers that were accessed.
> Saviors Save
> Heroes Act
> Your god did neither.


And a house of pervs will remain perverted. Your point is???

God does not dwell in an evil place.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> The outcome must necessarily reflect the desires of the Sovereign Lord of The Universe.  It was His plan for those children to be molested.  I can honestly see the comfort that believing that provides believers.  Perhaps it brings comfort to the molested children........Yuck.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No you don't. You have heard countless accounts and still dont believe. Biased opinions override evidence all day long.


I have heard countless accounts from many people who owe it to many gods. Your accounts of your god do not stand out above any and all the others.  People say that they see Bigfoot. People say that they have been abducted by aliens and have bee  taken away and brought back by spaceships. People say that they see Elvis.
People can and do say lots of things. People can say whatever they want. The one thing that they have in common that they are all lacking which keeps them from validating what they say and making the leap from from a claim to truth but cannot provide is EVIDENCE. There is nothing unique about Christians quitting booze. If All Christians could provide proof that non Christians cannot then you'd be onto something.
Your evidence is not evidence at all.




Spotlite said:


> And a house of pervs will remain perverted. Your point is???


Is your god incapable of saving christian from houses of pervs?



Spotlite said:


> God does not dwell in an evil place.


Does not? Won't? Can't? Afraid? Powerless?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> We all know what the problem is. It was the solution that has been missing. No savior. No knight in shining armor. No one to help. No one to answer the pleas and prayers.


Well what do you when Leroy next door says the pond has an alligator in it? 

1. Give it a possibility 
2. Play in the water and write it off until Leroy proves it because you have not found any evidence YET
3. Drain the pond and prove it is not there
4. Or just wait until it bites you

Leroy really isn't upset that you don't believe him, he was just letting you know.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


>


You have not explained why your god did nothing and you have not explained what your god did. There is zero evidence to support a god stepping in and helping any of these children.
All we have heard in here from you is that "we don't know that god didn't do anything" despite there is Zero Evidence that he did something. And we have heard that "its the parents fault, the priests are fake, the buildings are not god's houses, I quit drinking so god is real........" but STILL nothing that is actual evidence that can directly attributed to an All Knowing, All Powerful,All Seeing, All hearing, All Loving God that intervenes in the lives of humans to make bad situations stop.
You even admit to questioning his lack of action and why it is allowed yourself, but you stop at holding the Ultimate Authority of Right and Wrong and the only thing capable of doing anything about it when it has gotten beyond human control accountable for the No Show status. Not once, not twice but thousands of times in this particular case, tens of thousands of times regarding clergy around the country and world and millions of times around the globe yearly by non clergy.
Face palm all you want.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Well what do you when Leroy next door says the pond has an alligator in it?
> 
> 1. Give it a possibility
> 2. Play in the water and write it off until Leroy proves it because you have not found any evidence YET
> 3. Drain the pond and prove it is not there
> 4. Or just wait until it bites you
> 
> Leroy really isn't upset that you don't believe him, he was just letting you know.


Since alligators are known to exist....
If I lived down South where gators live Id take his advice and stay clear. 
IF Leroy is my neighbor here in Pa and itnis summer, id throw a baited stainless steel hook with piano wire cable and strong line in, tie it to a solid object and see what happens over the next few days. I'd look for alligator tracks and drag marks along the bank. I'd be cautious but skeptical and do whatever it took to ease or confirm.
If Leroy told me about an Alligator in a pond up in Norther Quebec I'd ask if he is drinking again.

Now if ol Leroy tells me there is an invisible All powerful, all knowing, all loving AlliHippoDile that lives in the pond and it saves drowning children,  but 1000 children drown in that pond.....i would say he is a liar...and if ol Leroy says well just because I didnt see the Invisible AlliHippoDile doesn't mean that it doesn't exist I would tell him pretty much the same things that I have repeatedly said to you throughout this whole thread.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


>




What do you mean by your emogi reply?  Do you disagree that God is sovereign and in control of all things at all times?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I am up to date, just not very invested in it.
> 
> Thanks.


If I remember your beliefs correctly.....
I interpret m


ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by your emogi reply?  Do you disagree that God is sovereign and in control of all things at all times?



We already went the "logical" route


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> If I didn't think it was best for me and my community and the world I wouldn't be a proponent of it.



That's not hard to believe...that you think yourself_ that man._


----------



## welderguy

What tells the atheist that pedophilia is wrong? If, as some claim, that humans are just advanced animals, and originated as animals, then why is pedophile behavior considered so wrong?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What tells the atheist that pedophilia is wrong? If, as some claim, that humans are just advanced animals, and originated as animals, then why is pedophile behavior considered so wrong?


The Society that we live in. The culture we live in. The laws that we obey.
I am sure that there are places in the world where it is accepted.

What is your point? That because of some great moral giver we frown upon these things? 
We discussed this already a million threads ago.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> That's not hard to believe...that you think yourself_ that man._



As opposed to a man that gets his walking orders from God Himself? The time has to end when people respect a person who says he "hears the voice of God".


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> The Society that we live in. The culture we live in. The laws that we obey.
> I am sure that there are places in the world where it is accepted.
> 
> What is your point? That because of some great moral giver we frown upon these things?
> We discussed this already a million threads ago.



So...basically...indoctrination?


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> So...basically...indoctrination?


Not answering for Bullet here but.....
In my opinion yes. A form of indoctrination.
I made the point earlier that indoctrination was all around us on a variety of subjects and in fact we get indoctrinated without even realizing it.
Is there a difference in religious indoctrination and social indoctrination?
I think yes absolutely.
But a form of indoctrination none the less.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The Society that we live in. The culture we live in. The laws that we obey.
> I am sure that there are places in the world where it is accepted.
> 
> What is your point? That because of some great moral giver we frown upon these things?
> We discussed this already a million threads ago.



So, according to your way of thinking, as long as society accepts it and does not make a law prohibiting it, then it must be right...
...hmmm


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> So...basically...indoctrination?



Yes. Simple answer, we are products of our family, society, culture, location, laws.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> So, according to your way of thinking, as long as society accepts it and does not make a law prohibiting it, then it must be right...
> ...hmmm


It is not my way of thinking. Itnis the way it is around the planet. People have not acted these ways for a million years based off of my thoughts.
Now you know we had these "morals" conversations numerous times in here, and I don't think you want to continue to tell us that we get our morals from a higher power....but if you do we can use the bible to base our actions off of what god condones and does himself and or currently allows to happen in his churches by his representatives...up to you.
I am in Boston right now getting ready to go to a concert but I will chime in later tonight and tomm.


Walt, you seem to know what I'm thinking, you can handle this till I get back! Lololol


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> It is not my way of thinking. Itnis the way it is around the planet. People have not acted these ways for a million years based off of my thoughts.
> Now you know we had these "morals" conversations numerous times in here, and I don't think you want to continue to tell us that we get our morals from a higher power....but if you do we can use the bible to base our actions off of what god condones and does himself and or currently allows to happen in his churches by his representatives...up to you.
> I am in Boston right now getting ready to go to a concert but I will chime in later tonight and tomm.
> 
> 
> Walt, you seem to know what I'm thinking, you can handle this till I get back! Lololol


Enjoy the show!
And if you are in the city do yourself a favor and go to Mike's Pastry on Hanover St. and get some cannolis!


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> It is not my way of thinking. Itnis the way it is around the planet. People have not acted these ways for a million years based off of my thoughts.
> Now you know we had these "morals" conversations numerous times in here, and I don't think you want to continue to tell us that we get our morals from a higher power....but if you do we can use the bible to base our actions off of what god condones and does himself and or currently allows to happen in his churches by his representatives...up to you.
> I am in Boston right now getting ready to go to a concert but I will chime in later tonight and tomm.
> 
> 
> Walt, you seem to know what I'm thinking, you can handle this till I get back! Lololol



So there's no absolute right or absolute wrong(in your estimation). Whatever society decides is right/wrong on any given day is it? But that's subject to change as the wind blows? It's no wonder society is so messed up, with this kind of reasoning. You rant about pedophilia, and say it's wrong, but then say there's no absolute wrong or right.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So there's no absolute right or absolute wrong(in your estimation). Whatever society decides is right/wrong on any given day is it? But that's subject to change as the wind blows? It's no wonder society is so messed up, with this kind of reasoning. You rant about pedophilia, and say it's wrong, but then say there's no absolute wrong or right.


In a thread about priests molesting children, headlines about pastors etc needing luxury jets to get around, whathisname crying on tv "I have siiiiiined" because if his penchant for hookers etc etc etc are you suuuuure you want to bring up how messed up society is?
As for "absolutes" .....
Some scumbag is choking your daughter out. She's moments from death.
You hear the commotn, grab your gun and burst upon the scene.
THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL.
Whatcha gonna do?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> So there's no absolute right or absolute wrong(in your estimation). Whatever society decides is right/wrong on any given day is it? But that's subject to change as the wind blows? It's no wonder society is so messed up, with this kind of reasoning. You rant about pedophilia, and say it's wrong, but then say there's no absolute wrong or right.




The excuse people give as to why God gives people instruction on how to treat their slaves is that "The times were different".


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> In a thread about priests molesting children, headlines about pastors etc needing luxury jets to get around, whathisname crying on tv "I have siiiiiined" because if his penchant for hookers etc etc etc are you suuuuure you want to bring up how messed up society is?
> As for "absolutes" .....
> Some scumbag is choking your daughter out. She's moments from death.
> You hear the commotn, grab your gun and burst upon the scene.
> THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL.
> Whatcha gonna do?



"Thou shalt not kill" would apply to the one trying to murder my daughter.

On the other hand, this one...

Proverbs 24
11 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
12 If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?

... would certainly apply to me. 
Agree?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> The excuse people give as to why God gives people instruction on how to treat their slaves is that "The times were different".


Treating slaves well would apply to all times.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> The excuse people give as to why God gives people instruction on how to treat their slaves is that "The times were different".



What's wrong with slavery, if done according to God's instruction?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What's wrong with slavery, if done according to God's instruction?


You are a disgusting individual.
Just my opinion of course.
I will never waste another second conversing with you.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You are a disgusting individual.
> Just my opinion of course.
> I will never waste another second conversing with you.



I'll add your name to the list.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> I'll add your name to the list.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> You are a disgusting individual.
> Just my opinion of course.
> I will never waste another second conversing with you.


Petty


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Petty


It would be literally impossible for me to care any less what you think about it.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> It would be literally impossible for me to care any less what you think about it.


Yet you just had to tell me that.

Not buying it.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Treating slaves well would apply to all times.





welderguy said:


> What's wrong with slavery, if done according to God's instruction?



I disagree with the practice of slavery because I've found utility in not treating people as property.  I'm swayed by arguments about the the rights of people to own themselves.  At the same time I understand that the only reason that my preferred societal organization is instantiated is because most people agree with me.  If more people felt like you both we might still have slavery.  That's kind of how it works, isn't it?  If the radical Muslims get control, making women wear burkas would be considered just, righteous, and the law of the land.  So I suppose those of us who disapprove of slavery still have to contend with those few remaining who don't.  Times change.  Circumstances change.  I can imagine in the abstract a situation in which slavery is utilitarian but I can't imagine a specific circumstance.  My feeling is that at that time, we will have regressed into a condition like that of the Bronze Aged Middle Easterners that wrote that stuff.  I hope I'm not around to see it.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> What's wrong with slavery, if done according to God's instruction?



I find this repellent, too.  But unlike Walt I'm intrigued.  Many of the things you say astound and amaze me.  I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to openly share your thoughts.  It's very brave.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I find this repellent, too.  But unlike Walt I'm intrigued.  Many of the things you say astound and amaze me.  I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to openly share your thoughts.  It's very brave.



Actually Walt jumped to conclusions too early,(but I'm used to him doing that).
I'm not a proponent of slavery. I was simply asking in the context of this discussion (the "no absolute wrongs"discussion), what atheists think is wrong with slavery. You guys are so combatant about things that you believe are wrong(pedophilia, slavery), but then say there really are no absolute wrongs. You can't have it both ways. See my point?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Actually Walt jumped to conclusions too early,(but I'm used to him doing that).
> I'm not a proponent of slavery. I was simply asking in the context of this discussion (the "no absolute wrongs"discussion), what atheists think is wrong with slavery. You guys are so combatant about things that you believe are wrong(pedophilia, slavery), but then say there really are no absolute wrongs. You can't have it both ways. See my point?


Where are the absolute rights at? Is there a list we can see? You have absolutely ZERO clue to what, if anything a god deems absolutely right. For all you know everything we deem abhorrent may be the exact opposite of what your god deems. It never ceases to amaze me at how your god thinks JUST like you do.
Give me the official list.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Actually Walt jumped to conclusions too early,(but I'm used to him doing that).
> I'm not a proponent of slavery. I was simply asking in the context of this discussion (the "no absolute wrongs"discussion), what atheists think is wrong with slavery. You guys are so combatant about things that you believe are wrong(pedophilia, slavery), but then say there really are no absolute wrongs. You can't have it both ways. See my point?




I do see your point but I think that you miss theirs and mine.  When your book gets replaced by another holy book (which history has shown is what happens to holy books, even though all the adherents through time have said "won't happen to MY holy book", but it does), or the notion of holy books disappears altogether, the true condition of situational morality will be apparent to all.  The condition of might makes right will always exist.  There are people who want pedophilia and slavery to be legal.  The rest of us keep them at bay by the force of law at the end of a gun.  Instead of saying "God told me to do this" or "not to do that" we should place our efforts on something that we can mostly all agree on.  I can explain the societal utility of not having slaves and  I can show how the world is better without pedophilia through argument.  Most of the reasons are based in The Golden Rule, and though durable and useful, it, too has flaws. 

Did you ignore the part where I said that at some point in time in some situation (that I can't quite imagine) that slavery might come back into fashion?


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Enjoy the show!
> And if you are in the city do yourself a favor and go to Mike's Pastry on Hanover St. and get some cannolis!


Thanks, we did enjoy the show.
Unfortunately we are rolling back to Pa 5am tomm morning to try to get a jump on Labor Day traffic.
We did drive into Kittery Maine this morning to go to the Kittery Trading Post and eat at the Weathervane restsurant. Best dang clam strips evahhh.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I disagree with the practice of slavery because I've found utility in not treating people as property.


Not all slaves have been treated as property. Some even volunteered into servitude.


ambush80 said:


> I'm swayed by arguments about the the rights of people to own themselves.  At the same time I understand that the only reason that my preferred societal organization is instantiated is because most people agree with me.


There are estimated to be 30 to 40 million plus slaves today. Also, that "most people agree with you" is an "Appeal to popularity" fallacy.


ambush80 said:


> If more people felt like you both we might still have slavery.  That's kind of how it works, isn't it?


No, that's not how it works. We might have less slavery.


ambush80 said:


> If the radical Muslims get control, making women wear burkas would be considered just, righteous, and the law of the land.  So I suppose those of us who disapprove of slavery still have to contend with those few remaining who don't.  Times change.  Circumstances change.  I can imagine in the abstract a situation in which slavery is utilitarian but I can't imagine a specific circumstance.  My feeling is that at that time, we will have regressed into a condition like that of the Bronze Aged Middle Easterners that wrote that stuff.  I hope I'm not around to see it.


We can spend a lot of time discussing the ifs.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> What do you mean by your emogi reply?  Do you disagree that God is sovereign and in control of all things at all times?


I disagree with your thinking.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Since alligators are known to exist....
> If I lived down South where gators live Id take his advice and stay clear.
> IF Leroy is my neighbor here in Pa and itnis summer, id throw a baited stainless steel hook with piano wire cable and strong line in, tie it to a solid object and see what happens over the next few days. I'd look for alligator tracks and drag marks along the bank. I'd be cautious but skeptical and do whatever it took to ease or confirm.
> If Leroy told me about an Alligator in a pond up in Norther Quebec I'd ask if he is drinking again.
> 
> Now if ol Leroy tells me there is an invisible All powerful, all knowing, all loving AlliHippoDile that lives in the pond and it saves drowning children,  but 1000 children drown in that pond.....i would say he is a liar...and if ol Leroy says well just because I didnt see the Invisible AlliHippoDile doesn't mean that it doesn't exist I would tell him pretty much the same things that I have repeatedly said to you throughout this whole thread.


Ok fair enough but the presumption is you’ve never seen one before. Point is, you are in the minority trying to prove the majority wrong.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Thanks, we did enjoy the show.
> Unfortunately we are rolling back to Pa 5am tomm morning to try to get a jump on Labor Day traffic.
> We did drive into Kittery Maine this morning to go to the Kittery Trading Post and eat at the Weathervane restsurant. Best dang clam strips evahhh.


Have been to Kittery Trading post a bunch of times but not in years. And funny you mentioned the clam strips. Brings back fond memories. When I was a kid we would get them to go and eat them in the car while we were driving on vacation. They would come in those old Chinese food type boxes with the wire handle. They were the REAL clam strips, bellies and all. Now Im craving them!


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Ok fair enough but the presumption is you’ve never seen one before. Point is, you are in the minority trying to prove the majority wrong.


Spotlite...YOU have never seen one before either!!!!
You act as if anything that people can conjur in their minds exists because NOBODY has ever seen it!!!
Do you hear how preposterous that is?

In your analogy you are taking an Alligator(something real, something we have physical evidence of, something people who do not live in Alligator country can and have seen) and equating it to a God(which nobody has ever seen, has no physical evidence of and has not ever been able to be proven real.)

I showed you how a more accurate analogy was by using a AlliHippoGator creature.
You then admit fair enough therefore conceding that what I said made perfect sense...And in thr next breath try to state that AlliHippoGaters are real because 2 people say they saw one and one did not.

Spotlite, are AlliHippoGators real, do they exist?
Would you go around life telling people they are in a pond?


----------



## WaltL1

Spotlite said:


> Ok fair enough but the presumption is you’ve never seen one before. Point is, you are in the minority trying to prove the majority wrong.


At one time the majority thought the world was flat and you would fall off the side/end if you sailed too far.
The majority seem to agree God/Jesus is a tall white dude with long hair.
Do you agree with that or do you believe that's just a representation we have come up with because nobody actually knows what God looks like?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> In a thread about priests molesting children, headlines about pastors etc needing luxury jets to get around, whathisname crying on tv "I have siiiiiined" because if his penchant for hookers etc etc etc are you suuuuure you want to bring up how messed up society is?
> As for "absolutes" .....
> Some scumbag is choking your daughter out. She's moments from death.
> You hear the commotn, grab your gun and burst upon the scene.
> THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL.
> Whatcha gonna do?



The world is sustained (in one derivative sense) by what men think they are doing and what they think they _will do_, but the form it takes is what they in fact, do.

What may be seen as one man's luxury is seen as another man's necessity. (does that appear _only_ a work around to you?)

All of a man's ways are right in _his own eyes._

That woman in the 800$ pair of Guccis that steps out of a boutique on Rodeo Drive and breaks a nail from carrying over laden shopping bags may swear at Heaven believing _all of creation_ has conspired against her to such _misery._

That's become a tired trope for me to repeat, as clever as I think I am.
Because the truth may be, that none of us has to look _at her_ to know this. 

But who can deride the man that doesn't _even _know this?
For I am _no more forgiven_ than she.

If a man has strength enough to complain, he yet has too much strength.
(To him who has more shall be given, but to him who has not...even that which _he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him.

There's a fun experiment that awaits _all deputies_. It involves stepping between a man and one of his greatest idols, and it is called intercession. (And some _still believe_ Jesus...mythical!)

It's a very real place, or for truth's sake, let's drop the _very real _and be content with just_...real. _Not everyone is called there, but you'll know it...when _you are there. _And then all matter of who is, who isn't called there takes its proper place...as nothing.
For all you know is that if you don't learn to swim there...nothing else has ever mattered...that _you thought you knew _about _things._

The caller..._put you_ there.

This place is terrible in its lesson...in the way of being so utterly and terribly _complete_. For The Caller is relentless in lesson. "Are you sure you want to do battle with lie...and myth?"

...Jesus spoke in another way. 

"Count the cost".

Stone by stone, brick by brick this lie must be laid waste, the once "Palace of Grandeur" erected to each man's greatest myth and idol of all. It's guarded by his own dragons, fierce of tooth and claw. Their strength comes from the many offerings he makes at his altar, and they will tear at any who do not enter with intent to make likewise offering at the altar to their strength. Do you think dragons are not real? Then you haven't seen _your own palace _with open eyes. 

Till then, it just appears as comfortable "living room", with hearth so warmly burning and inviting. And dragons merely appear as soft puppies to be stroked on your lap as you sit.
Oh, each man knows who he invites and who he refuses as he tells himself "I must be careful of the puppies." 

But hearth is fueled by he11 itself and burns beneath this altar. And this altar of all false and devious rite is fully supported, so strongly supported, so entrenched in earth to the firmest foundation that no man can touch his own without being so horribly burned and disfigured and find his own puppies now turned to dragons _against_ him.

Nevertheless, Caller speaks. Truth...or...lie? Count the cost!

For this altar of lie has its two pillars supporting, whose foundations spring from all lie to their maintenance of the altar.

And here man thinks he offers up, when all he does...is offer down to keep the "home fires burning".

And these two pillars are plainly engraved with what _all men_ believe as fundamental beyond discovery.

And...they are all of lie.

On one is written "The _right_ to self pity" on the other "The_ right_ to be offended".

Where two rights add up to _all of wrong_.

But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look inside it. And I began to weep bitterly, because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or look inside it. Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals. 

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

And to the man...it feels..._just like home._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> The world is sustained (in one derivative sense) by what men think they are doing and what they think they _will do_, but the form it takes is what they in fact, do.
> 
> What may be seen as one man's luxury is seen as another man's necessity. (does that appear _only_ a work around to you?)
> 
> All of a man's ways are right in _his own eyes._
> 
> That woman in the 800$ pair of Guccis that steps out of a boutique on Rodeo Drive and breaks a nail from carrying over laden shopping bags may swear at Heaven believing _all of creation_ has conspired against her to such _misery._
> 
> That's become a tired trope for me to repeat, as clever as I think I am.
> Because the truth may be, that none of us has to look _at her_ to know this.
> 
> But who can deride the man that doesn't _even _know this?
> For I am _no more forgiven_ than she.
> 
> If a man has strength enough to complain, he yet has too much strength.
> (To him who has more shall be given, but to him who has not...even that which _he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him.
> 
> There's a fun experiment that awaits _all deputies_. It involves stepping between a man and one of his greatest idols, and it is called intercession. (And some _still believe_ Jesus...mythical!)
> 
> It's a very real place, or for truth's sake, let's drop the _very real _and be content with just_...real. _Not everyone is called there, but you'll know it...when _you are there. _And then all matter of who is, who isn't called there takes its proper place...as nothing.
> For all you know is that if you don't learn to swim there...nothing else has ever mattered...that _you thought you knew _about _things._
> 
> The caller..._put you_ there.
> 
> This place is terrible in its lesson...in the way of being so utterly and terribly _complete_. For The Caller is relentless in lesson. "Are you sure you want to do battle with lie...and myth?"
> 
> ...Jesus spoke in another way.
> 
> "Count the cost".
> 
> Stone by stone, brick by brick this lie must be laid waste, the once "Palace of Grandeur" erected to each man's greatest myth and idol of all. It's guarded by his own dragons, fierce of tooth and claw. Their strength comes from the many offerings he makes at his altar, and they will tear at any who do not enter with intent to make likewise offering at the altar to their strength. Do you think dragons are not real? Then you haven't seen _your own palace _with open eyes.
> 
> Till then, it just appears as comfortable "living room", with hearth so warmly burning and inviting. And dragons merely appear as soft puppies to be stroked on your lap as you sit.
> Oh, each man knows who he invites and who he refuses as he tells himself "I must be careful of the puppies."
> 
> But hearth is fueled by he11 itself and burns beneath this altar. And this altar of all false and devious rite is fully supported, so strongly supported, so entrenched in earth to the firmest foundation that no man can touch his own without being so horribly burned and disfigured and find his own puppies now turned to dragons _against_ him.
> 
> Nevertheless, Caller speaks. Truth...or...lie? Count the cost!
> 
> For this altar of lie has its two pillars supporting, whose foundations spring from all lie to their maintenance of the altar.
> 
> And here man thinks he offers up, when all he does...is offer down to keep the "home fires burning".
> 
> And these two pillars are plainly engraved with what _all men_ believe as fundamental beyond discovery.
> 
> And...they are all of lie.
> 
> On one is written "The _right_ to self pity" on the other "The_ right_ to be offended".
> 
> Where two rights add up to _all of wrong_.
> 
> But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look inside it. And I began to weep bitterly, because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or look inside it. Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has triumphed to open the scroll and its seven seals.
> 
> When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ On its arrival, it finds the house vacant, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and dwell there; and the final plight of that man is worse than the first.
> 
> And to the man...it feels..._just like home._


That AlliHippoGator is sumpin...lolololol


----------



## Israel

Men do lie. Or act to cover their tracks in some way that is no less a lie than any other.

The matter of misrepresenting oneself to others in whatever measure, is not unusually the result of a misconception (lie) to our self, about our self. Or at the very best wrong inferences about our self.

Whether one receives our civil/legal system as fair example, (at least in the states) I think we all can understand a basic thing about its workings. Men give testimony "under oath" there, a swearing (or affirming) that in that particular place, at that particular time, in that particular venue...they tell the truth. It's obvious right? It's plain. We all take one another as liars by default that it takes a very particular "doing of something" (swearing/affirming) to attempt to enter into some sort of (imagined) milieu of truth. It is a de facto admission about ourselves and a rather ****ing indictment itself about our views of things.

Funny, right? Thinking that a lying man would take an oath...not in lie. Or that there's a something a liar could do "before others" to make his word true. It is very much an admission (as corollary) that "you may skate elsewhere in lie...but here, not". No, of course it's not said as such...but the implication is clear. It is so profoundly deep, this lying thing, that even during the "session" (at least as I've seen) the judge is not remiss to remind "remember, you are still 'under oath' "


And so a congregation of liars is "in session"...made particularly clear by any trust in the greatest lie of all, that they/we can "swear one another in" to the truth. That any one liar has sufficient authority "in himself" (or is increased by numbers) to adjure truth from others. It's like we think we have power over one another to release (or command) from all self interest in any matter. (For where else do lies originate?)

That is folly of the first degree.

The fear of penalty for being _shown a liar_ may, in some, be greater than in others. This too, is always measured against "self interest"...preservation of self to a self-acceptable identity of self.
And liars _always_ can do _no less_, nor _more_...than seek an identity they _approve to themselves._

Who can understand this?


He who knew no sin became sin for us...(how can one be made _all he is not?)_

Of course men are skeptical.

A liar cannot find any identity acceptable to himself, in the truth. None can see themselves, nor even how they could be/exist apart from their preservation of an acceptable (to themselves) self identity.

(each may ask himself...what do I hold to? Or...to what...am I held?)

But, Jesus Christ can do (and does) this for another. Because He Himself, has had this done in Himself. In His own body...on the tree.

A man cannot even recognize his own self there. (of course it's impossible for man!)

But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

Happy is the man who is forced to see himself as he is. Alone, naked, and bereft of all ability. For the forcing One's presence is revealed...there...where no man can, or could go "of himself".

Here, and only, he's relieved of all force...to be anything.

What he is, is plain.

He's even relieved (especially relieved) of having to make sense to himself.

"I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all". Said one.
He got it.

And here may be found the most curious and perhaps sole truth a man may utter in any comprehensible word among men about himself... "I am the greatest liar, I have known".

He speaks truth, before God. But, of course, no man can receive his testimony.

For a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

It's easy to see a liar. That's all we have ever seen of one another...from the beginning.

The seeing of a patience ministered to liars, though...who can bear to know it?

If everyone else...has the mote...then that's the beam we have. The proof of it. In our very own selves.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Not all slaves have been treated as property. Some even volunteered into servitude.



I'm not one to tell people what they should do with themselves.  Some women claim that they love their burkas.  It's to those that don't want to be slaves, that are forced into it that I'm considering.  In as much as I can exert influence on the society in which I live I'll propose that slavery not be part of it. 



gemcgrew said:


> There are estimated to be 30 to 40 million plus slaves today. Also, that "most people agree with you" is an "Appeal to popularity" fallacy.



Do they like it?  Are they suffering?  Are they slaves because of injustice?  Is it OK that there are slaves still?

It's not an appeal to popularity.  It's an accurate description of the results of political process or power struggle. This will be the third time that I'll articulate that I understand that if enough people in power want to re-institute the practice of slavery then it will become the law of the land.  If an irrefutable argument can be made for its absolute necessity I imagine I'll agree with it. 



gemcgrew said:


> No, that's not how it works. We might have less slavery.



Can you explain this?  In my mind, if a doctrine lays out how to treat slaves properly then it implies that owning slaves is acceptable. If the Bible included a recipe for honey glazed pork loin I would interpret that as the Bible condoning the consumption of pork.



gemcgrew said:


> We can spend a lot of time discussing the ifs.



It's a thought experiment.  An exercise in logic.  "If this, then (perhaps ) this".  It's a way to conduct a social experiment without actually having to try Sharia Law here in real life.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Men do lie. Or act to cover their tracks in some way that is no less a lie than any other.
> 
> The matter of misrepresenting oneself to others in whatever measure, is not unusually the result of a misconception (lie) to our self, about our self. Or at the very best wrong inferences about our self.
> 
> Whether one receives our civil/legal system as fair example, (at least in the states) I think we all can understand a basic thing about its workings. Men give testimony "under oath" there, a swearing (or affirming) that in that particular place, at that particular time, in that particular venue...they tell the truth. It's obvious right? It's plain. We all take one another as liars by default that it takes a very particular "doing of something" (swearing/affirming) to attempt to enter into some sort of (imagined) milieu of truth. It is a de facto admission about ourselves and a rather ****ing indictment itself about our views of things.
> 
> Funny, right? Thinking that a lying man would take an oath...not in lie. Or that there's a something a liar could do "before others" to make his word true. It is very much an admission (as corollary) that "you may skate elsewhere in lie...but here, not". No, of course it's not said as such...but the implication is clear. It is so profoundly deep, this lying thing, that even during the "session" (at least as I've seen) the judge is not remiss to remind "remember, you are still 'under oath' "
> 
> 
> And so a congregation of liars is "in session"...made particularly clear by any trust in the greatest lie of all, that they/we can "swear one another in" to the truth. That any one liar has sufficient authority "in himself" (or is increased by numbers) to adjure truth from others. It's like we think we have power over one another to release (or command) from all self interest in any matter. (For where else do lies originate?)
> 
> That is folly of the first degree.
> 
> The fear of penalty for being _shown a liar_ may, in some, be greater than in others. This too, is always measured against "self interest"...preservation of self to a self-acceptable identity of self.
> And liars _always_ can do _no less_, nor _more_...than seek an identity they _approve to themselves._
> 
> Who can understand this?
> 
> 
> He who knew no sin became sin for us...(how can one be made _all he is not?)_
> 
> Of course men are skeptical.
> 
> A liar cannot find any identity acceptable to himself, in the truth. None can see themselves, nor even how they could be/exist apart from their preservation of an acceptable (to themselves) self identity.
> 
> (each may ask himself...what do I hold to? Or...to what...am I held?)
> 
> But, Jesus Christ can do (and does) this for another. Because He Himself, has had this done in Himself. In His own body...on the tree.
> 
> A man cannot even recognize his own self there. (of course it's impossible for man!)
> 
> But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
> 
> Happy is the man who is forced to see himself as he is. Alone, naked, and bereft of all ability. For the forcing One's presence is revealed...there...where no man can, or could go "of himself".
> 
> Here, and only, he's relieved of all force...to be anything.
> 
> What he is, is plain.
> 
> He's even relieved (especially relieved) of having to make sense to himself.
> 
> "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all". Said one.
> He got it.
> 
> And here may be found the most curious and perhaps sole truth a man may utter in any comprehensible word among men about himself... "I am the greatest liar, I have known".
> 
> He speaks truth, before God. But, of course, no man can receive his testimony.
> 
> For a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.
> 
> This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
> 
> It's easy to see a liar. That's all we have ever seen of one another...from the beginning.
> 
> The seeing of a patience ministered to liars, though...who can bear to know it?
> 
> If everyone else...has the mote...then that's the beam we have. The proof of it. In our very own selves.




Have you read Jordan Peterson's new book, _Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos_?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Men do lie. Or act to cover their tracks in some way that is no less a lie than any other.
> 
> The matter of misrepresenting oneself to others in whatever measure, is not unusually the result of a misconception (lie) to our self, about our self. Or at the very best wrong inferences about our self.
> 
> Whether one receives our civil/legal system as fair example, (at least in the states) I think we all can understand a basic thing about its workings. Men give testimony "under oath" there, a swearing (or affirming) that in that particular place, at that particular time, in that particular venue...they tell the truth. It's obvious right? It's plain. We all take one another as liars by default that it takes a very particular "doing of something" (swearing/affirming) to attempt to enter into some sort of (imagined) milieu of truth. It is a de facto admission about ourselves and a rather ****ing indictment itself about our views of things.
> 
> Funny, right? Thinking that a lying man would take an oath...not in lie. Or that there's a something a liar could do "before others" to make his word true. It is very much an admission (as corollary) that "you may skate elsewhere in lie...but here, not". No, of course it's not said as such...but the implication is clear. It is so profoundly deep, this lying thing, that even during the "session" (at least as I've seen) the judge is not remiss to remind "remember, you are still 'under oath' "
> 
> 
> And so a congregation of liars is "in session"...made particularly clear by any trust in the greatest lie of all, that they/we can "swear one another in" to the truth. That any one liar has sufficient authority "in himself" (or is increased by numbers) to adjure truth from others. It's like we think we have power over one another to release (or command) from all self interest in any matter. (For where else do lies originate?)
> 
> That is folly of the first degree.
> 
> The fear of penalty for being _shown a liar_ may, in some, be greater than in others. This too, is always measured against "self interest"...preservation of self to a self-acceptable identity of self.
> And liars _always_ can do _no less_, nor _more_...than seek an identity they _approve to themselves._
> 
> Who can understand this?
> 
> 
> He who knew no sin became sin for us...(how can one be made _all he is not?)_
> 
> Of course men are skeptical.
> 
> A liar cannot find any identity acceptable to himself, in the truth. None can see themselves, nor even how they could be/exist apart from their preservation of an acceptable (to themselves) self identity.
> 
> (each may ask himself...what do I hold to? Or...to what...am I held?)
> 
> But, Jesus Christ can do (and does) this for another. Because He Himself, has had this done in Himself. In His own body...on the tree.
> 
> A man cannot even recognize his own self there. (of course it's impossible for man!)
> 
> But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
> 
> Happy is the man who is forced to see himself as he is. Alone, naked, and bereft of all ability. For the forcing One's presence is revealed...there...where no man can, or could go "of himself".
> 
> Here, and only, he's relieved of all force...to be anything.
> 
> What he is, is plain.
> 
> He's even relieved (especially relieved) of having to make sense to himself.
> 
> "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all". Said one.
> He got it.
> 
> And here may be found the most curious and perhaps sole truth a man may utter in any comprehensible word among men about himself... "I am the greatest liar, I have known".
> 
> He speaks truth, before God. But, of course, no man can receive his testimony.
> 
> For a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above.
> 
> This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
> 
> It's easy to see a liar. That's all we have ever seen of one another...from the beginning.
> 
> The seeing of a patience ministered to liars, though...who can bear to know it?
> 
> If everyone else...has the mote...then that's the beam we have. The proof of it. In our very own selves.


Lets not lose sight of who penned the bible, them same Lying Men you speak of above.
Israel, why didn't HimHeOne help the children? When the children relied on HimHeOne why didn't he do what you say he does??


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I disagree with your thinking.



What do you mean?  What part of my thinking do you disagree with?


----------



## welderguy

If atheists want to get on their soapbox and proclaim there's no absolute wrong or right, then they have no business proclaiming ANYTHING to be wrong or right. When they do, they fall into their own trap.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> If atheists want to get on their soapbox and proclaim there's no absolute wrong or right, then they have no business proclaiming ANYTHING to be wrong or right. When they do, they fall into their own trap.



You're not thinking clearly.  A Muslim will tell you what he believes is absolutely right or wrong.  How do you, personally, argue against him? 

I like Sam Harris' idea of "wrong" or "bad".  He imagines "The worst possible suck for everybody for ever".  That's bad.  Any move away from that is towards the good.  Even then, one still has to consider a masochist or a sadist.  They kind of fall outside of that standard.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Have you read Jordan Peterson's new book, _Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos_?



No I haven't. I think I've seen he's mentioned it a few times. 
Have you?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> No I haven't. I think I've seen he's mentioned it a few times.
> Have you?




Just finished it.  You would dig it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If atheists want to get on their soapbox and proclaim there's no absolute wrong or right, then they have no business proclaiming ANYTHING to be wrong or right. When they do, they fall into their own trap.


Where is the list Welder?
How do you know what is wrong and what is right?
We told you what guides us with laws to prove it. 

Want to use instances in the bible?
Tell me how you know what is morally right.

You made a claim and absolutely cannot back it up.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If atheists want to get on their soapbox and proclaim there's no absolute wrong or right, then they have no business proclaiming ANYTHING to be wrong or right. When they do, they fall into their own trap.


Welder there is nobody worse than someone who claims the things that you claim and absolutely refuse to back them up.

"God gives us morals"...
And even if you wanted to, you absolutely cannot show us anything that you claim comes from a diety, because you cannot even whip up a diety to exist. Your premise is that this invisible thing gives us ultimate rules and you cannot provide either.

We showed you what guides our morals in this country. Your turn. Where is your list??


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Where is the list Welder?
> How do you know what is wrong and what is right?
> We told you what guides us with laws to prove it.
> 
> Want to use instances in the bible?
> Tell me how you know what is morally right.
> 
> You made a claim and absolutely cannot back it up.



You're not getting it, or you're deflecting.
It's you atheists that have already started a list (first there was pedophilia, then preachers buying airplanes, then a certain preacher's adulteries, then slavery)
So the atheists have been busy pointing out their absolute wrongs. But then they(including you)have also been busy saying there is no absolute wrong.No black or white, only gray. That every action is wrong or right according to the majority of society. And that something that's wrong today may be perfectly right tomorrow. 

There's no backbone in that way of thinking, and it constantly contradicts itself.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> If atheists want to get on their soapbox and proclaim there's no absolute wrong or right, then they have no business proclaiming ANYTHING to be wrong or right. When they do, they fall into their own trap.


Welder, I am not... REPEAT ....NOT...an Atheist.
Do you somehow think that a person who says there is no god yet gets their morals from the evolution of individual, family, culture, society and the laws that result from those tangible and proven sources shouldn't be allowed to adhere to moral standards or hold others to those standards?
Do you think that lets your No Show god off the hook for allowing children to be molested? Like our argument is cancelled and these molestations dont count against your god?
And,,,AND the BEST is, that you say that you get these morals from a god and CANNOT produce a god or where these morals are on record, when they were given or even tell us officially WHAT these absolute morals are..except that whatever you think "moral" is...IS the correct choice!!!

Why isn't every atheist on the planet locked up for not having the ability to understand or posess morals?
And why aren't all believers the echelon and pinnacle of society?

And oh by the way, since I am not an Atheist, and there are millions of Agnostics that will say morals come from the same sources that Atheists say...your point is flushed down the toilet. Its a three flusher.

You are a study in how someone has to justify their twisted logic to fit to be able to cope with the blatent contradictions.

Welder,  if your god is responsible for providing all of humanity with morals it is yet another failure on HimHeOne's end for doing it properly.

Please keep going, but first I ask you yet again to provide this list that you access so that you know that above all other humans on the planet that YOU are the most moral. Surely you have to be the most moral mortal to ever walk the planet because even if you live by the feelings(however you are going to show us the list or source you use provided by your god) you have GOT to do the right thing, make the right decision EVERY single time. After all YOUR GOD is sending you the all the most moral info right?


You got some 'splainin to do Luuucy, but given your track record I am not expecting anything that helps your claim. Same Ol Same Ol


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You're not getting it, or you're deflecting.
> It's you atheists that have already started a list (first there was pedophilia, then preachers buying airplanes, then a certain preacher's adulteries, then slavery)
> So the atheists have been busy pointing out their absolute wrongs. But then they(including you)have also been busy saying there is no absolute wrong.No black or white, only gray. That every action is wrong or right according to the majority of society. And that something that's wrong today may be perfectly right tomorrow.
> 
> There's no backbone in that way of thinking, and it constantly contradicts itself.


In our society it says those things are wrong!!!
Your god ALLOWED it to happen when he was the LAST resort. Welder, YOUR GOD must be A-OK with pedophilia, incest, slavery, murder, torture, revenge, smite and a dozen others because HE ALLOWS it and it is in HIS guide book.

You are right we dont get it....things that are plain dumb and worded like you word it, and thoughts like you think are UN-Gettable!!!

You are following the rules and morals that society sets for you and are arguing that they dont exist!!!! Priceless welder...priceless!!!


----------



## bullethead

bullethead said:


> Welder, I am not... REPEAT ....NOT...an Atheist.
> Do you somehow think that a person who says there is no god yet gets their morals from the evolution of individual, family, culture, society and the laws that result from those tangible and proven sources shouldn't be allowed to adhere to moral standards or hold others to those standards?
> Do you think that lets your No Show god off the hook for allowing children to be molested? Like our argument is cancelled and these molestations dont count against your god?
> And,,,AND the BEST is, that you say that you get these morals from a god and CANNOT produce a god or where these morals are on record, when they were given or even tell us officially WHAT these absolute morals are..except that whatever you think "moral" is...IS the correct choice!!!
> 
> Why isn't every atheist on the planet locked up for not having the ability to understand or posess morals?
> And why aren't all believers the echelon and pinnacle of society?
> 
> And oh by the way, since I am not an Atheist, and there are millions of Agnostics that will say morals come from the same sources that Atheists say...your point is flushed down the toilet. Its a three flusher.
> 
> You are a study in how someone has to justify their twisted logic to fit to be able to cope with the blatent contradictions.
> 
> Welder,  if your god is responsible for providing all of humanity with morals it is yet another failure on HimHeOne's end for doing it properly.
> 
> Please keep going, but first I ask you yet again to provide this list that you access so that you know that above all other humans on the planet that YOU are the most moral. Surely you have to be the most moral mortal to ever walk the planet because even if you live by the feelings(however you are going to show us the list or source you use provided by your god) you have GOT to do the right thing, make the right decision EVERY single time. After all YOUR GOD is sending you the all the most moral info right?
> 
> 
> You got some 'splainin to do Luuucy, but given your track record I am not expecting anything that helps your claim. Same Ol Same Ol


Welder,  tell us what exactly are the absolute wrongs.
I seriously want to know.
You apparently have a master list somewhere that was handed out by your god and I am asking you nicely,  begging if need be, to snap a pic of that master list and show me/us. I WANT to follow it. I want to live my life to the best of my ability and I want to always make the right decision. Please let me use your list.

No deflecting.

Post it


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder,  tell us what exactly are the absolute wrongs.
> I seriously want to know.
> You apparently have a master list somewhere that was handed out by your god and I am asking you nicely,  begging if need be, to snap a pic of that master list and show me/us. I WANT to follow it. I want to live my life to the best of my ability and I want to always make the right decision. Please let me use your list.
> 
> No deflecting.
> 
> Post it



The specific wrongs are not what I'm debating here and you know it. You're trying to deflect from facing your own contradiction, (which I have repeatedly pointed out to you) by placing a burden of proof on me to produce a list.
The list is already started. Your boy Walt got so disgusted at me when he thought I was for slavery, that now he won't even talk to me. Apparently he firmly believes slavery is wrong. But in the next breath he says there are no absolute wrongs. Explain that one to me, then we can move on.


----------



## CummingDeplorable

The KKK Muslims and pedophile Catholic priests all have one thing in common... democrats. 
The democrats started the KKK. Muslims in America vote democrat 100%, I dare you to find one Muslim who’ll denounce Islam in public. And the Pope won’t comment on the church’s pedo epidemic but will promote global warming?.... find me an intellectually sincere democrat. It’s rare that I find a candidate to vote FOR. I make my choices based on who I’m voting AGAINST.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The specific wrongs are not what I'm debating here and you know it. You're trying to deflect from facing your own contradiction, (which I have repeatedly pointed out to you) by placing a burden of proof on me to produce a list.
> The list is already started. Your boy Walt got so disgusted at me when he thought I was for slavery, that now he won't even talk to me. Apparently he firmly believes slavery is wrong. But in the next breath he says there are no absolute wrongs. Explain that one to me, then we can move on.


Deflection at it's finest welder...

Today, right now in this country Slavery is wrong.
200 years ago  and earlier slavery was accepted in this country and by men that you say used god to found this country. 
Which is ABSOLUTE?
Slavery still happens in the world. Just like if you were born in a Muslim country, you'd be worshipping Allah...if you were born in a country where slavery was legal...you think it was absolutey right.

If "we" get our morals from god why do they vary?

How do you and I know what is absolutely right?
How do you and I know what is absolutely wrong?

If these absolutes come from your god HOW do we know them? Where can I get the list?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Deflection at it's finest welder...
> 
> Today, right now in this country Slavery is wrong.
> 200 years ago  and earlier slavery was accepted in this country and by men that you say used god to found this country.
> Which is ABSOLUTE?
> Slavery still happens in the world. Just like if you were born in a Muslim country, you'd be worshipping Allah...if you were born in a country where slavery was legal...you think it was absolutey right.
> 
> If "we" get our morals from god why do they vary?
> 
> How do you and I know what is absolutely right?
> How do you and I know what is absolutely wrong?
> 
> If these absolutes come from your god HOW do we know them? Where can I get the list?



I can't wrap my head around how you claim something to be wrong in one breath, and right in another. Who cares about society's whims, if something is wrong it's wrong. How can something go from wrong to right, based on people's feelings? This is where we disagree insanely.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I can't wrap my head around how you claim something to be wrong in one breath, and right in another. Who cares about society's whims, if something is wrong it's wrong. How can something go from wrong to right, based on people's feelings? This is where we disagree insanely.


How do I/you/anyone know what is wrong??
You cannot show me a list that your god made so how do you know and how am I supposed to know which is really what your god wants to happen?

Welder...how do you know whats wrong is wrong? Had you been alive 200+ years ago there is a good chance that you may have owned another person. Why did all those god fearing Christians own other people back then if it was wrong?

Throughout this entire convo you keep making assertions, statements and claims and have not backed a single one up with any thing that resembles a fact.
I have showed you laws and practices that shape morals based off of society and culture and religion, and geography and they are in no way are Absolute or Universal.

Again, I ask you, if there are Absolute Morals, and they come from your god..
1. Why do they vary among the followers of your god so greatly around the planet?
2. Where are these Absolute Moral Laws written so that someone who is interested in making sure that they get them right can access them?
3. If they are not accessible or written down, tell me how YOU know what they are!!! You seems to be saying that you know what they are...well stop the tap dancing and get to actually backing up your claim.


Welder, you have not and cannot back up your claims. All you need to do to shut me up and get a full apology from me is take the claims that you have made, and give examples that back them up. No more factless statements or assertions.
Answer 1,2,and 3 above. If you know absolute morals come from your god provide them. What are they? How do you know?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I can't wrap my head around how you claim something to be wrong in one breath, and right in another. Who cares about society's whims, if something is wrong it's wrong. How can something go from wrong to right, based on people's feelings? This is where we disagree insanely.


And i am not claiming anything is right or wrong. I am telling that the levels of acceptability vary among individuals, family, society, culture, country, religion...and on and on and on.

If there is one source.. there has got to be a list of Yes and No.
Show me it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I can see a lot of things that are right today that were wrong even in my life. I can remember when it was morally right to deny Blacks and women equality. I can remember when it was wrong for women to wear pants. I can remember when it was wrong for Whites to marry Blacks. When it was wrong for women to preach in a Church. 
I can remember when wives were to look the other way when their husbands spent time away from his family and with his friends instead.
I can remember when couples that weren't married didn't live together.
I can remember when it was OK to smoke anywhere, even at hospital nursing stations. I can remember when it was OK for a 17 year old boy to date a 13 year old girl.

I can remember when Whites didn't go to Church with Blacks. I can remember Colored water fountains and bathrooms. I can remember when gambling was frowned upon. Even playing cards or a school Cake Walk.

Point being if God never changes, where did these changes come from?


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I can see a lot of things that are right today that were wrong even in my life. I can remember when it was morally right to deny Blacks and women equality. I can remember when it was wrong for women to wear pants. I can remember when it was wrong for Whites to marry Blacks. When it was wrong for women to preach in a Church.
> I can remember when wives were to look the other way when their husbands spent time away from his family and with his friends instead.
> I can remember when couples that weren't married didn't live together.
> I can remember when it was OK to smoke anywhere, even at hospital nursing stations. I can remember when it was OK for a 17 year old boy to date a 13 year old girl.
> 
> I can remember when Whites didn't go to Church with Blacks. I can remember Colored water fountains and bathrooms. I can remember when gambling was frowned upon. Even playing cards or a school Cake Walk.
> 
> Point being if God never changes, where did these changes come from?


And to add, go back hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. As we evolved so did our morals. As we settled all over the globe our varying  morals went with us and changed as we changed. It has not stopped and won't.


----------



## Artfuldodger

It's like the list changes between the times within a Christian nation or just between the various Christian nations.
Then we've got different ideals of right or wrong among the nations that believe in any god or gods. The Hindu nations, the Native Americans of North America vs South America 4oo years ago.
They Aztecs vs Mayans. Two groups that live in different times.

Where to the people who have believed in a god that has never existed gather their morals? If their gods didn't exist, then neither did that god's morals.


----------



## bullethead

[QUOTE="Artfuldodger, post: 11339082, member: 85961"
Point being if God never changes, where did these changes come from?[/QUOTE]

And if these morals have existed within the first semblance of humans as god intended, and God in fact never changes, then we are far from his absolute morals. Welder, you are included, more likely especially.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Kinda related to the discussion on right or wrong was something my wife and I was discussing yesterday. It was concerning my Mom and Dad and that wives in the 60's didn't voice much of gripes etc. with husbands. They didn't miss the flowers that he didn't bring. They didn't miss the "I love you's" that he didn't say, etc. If she did, she never did say so to Daddy.
Actually I'm quoting an Emmylou Harris song "To Daddy"

So the Dad's of the 60's got to go on fishing trips, fraternity meetings, the bowling league, drink with friends, even party with other women, etc., while the wife was expected to stay home every night with the kids. 
The husband went to the Moose lodge on Tuesday, bowling on Wednesday, a few drinks with the boys on Thursday, and golfing on Saturday. 

While it may be true that today's husbands may do some of this, the wives now give them heck about it. The wives of today will say, you stay home with the kids tonight, I'm going out with the girls.

Just another change in a Christian nation. Maybe to the better on this one.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> [QUOTE="Artfuldodger, post: 11339082, member: 85961"
> Point being if God never changes, where did these changes come from?



And if these morals have existed within the first semblance of humans as god intended, and God in fact never changes, then we are far from his absolute morals. Welder, you are included, more likely especially.[/QUOTE]

And as more people learn about God from a whole world perspective, are we getting better at keeping God's morals as the world learns them? 
Is the world getting closer to loving each other as they do themselves? Is the world forgiving more neighbors than before they knew God?

It is said that we can learn about God's morals from nature but we can't abide by them without an effectual calling. If that is true then what would be the purpose of learning God's morals without His power for us to follow them? 
What good are morals if we don't have the capacity to follow them? If we are truly that depraved.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> And as more people learn about God from a whole world perspective, are we getting better at keeping God's morals as the world learns them?
> Is the world getting closer to loving each other as they do themselves? Is the world forgiving more neighbors than before they knew God?
> 
> It is said that we can learn about God's morals from nature but we can't abide by them without an effectual calling. If that is true then what would be the purpose of learning God's morals without His power for us to follow them?
> What good are morals if we don't have the capacity to follow them? If we are truly that depraved.


What good is a god if it doesn't exist in the capacity we think?
What good is a god that is so complex that we cannot understand it.
What good is a god that cannot universally communicate with it's "children" because it's guide book is open to interpretation?

Art, I feel that if there is a god I can't even begin to think of how I could understand it unless I were to pretend to understand it in the same ways that I understand myself. It is my opinion that too much of that goes on.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Lets not lose sight of who penned the bible, them same Lying Men you speak of above.
> Israel, why didn't HimHeOne help the children? When the children relied on HimHeOne why didn't he do what you say he does??



To be honest I'd have to admit I don't know.
I don't know many things. I don't know who is, or was relying on what, in a situation I am not given to know. But since you seem to be fully engaged feel free to tell me. Who prayed to whom...and for what, who asked of whom, and for what. I only truly know of your testimony to the situation...I don't even know that anyone prayed...or have said they did. But if you know of someone's prayer, or prayers...and to whom, well, I am also not ignorant of your previous handling of such testimony.

You seem to be about doing the very same things of which you accuse others.
On one hand you say "I don't believe these were men of god" and yet in more than a few of your posts you refer to them as that.  How many times have you mentioned "this was done in his (His) house?" You could go back and read. I have made it clear that to myself...men in robes, collars, places with placards proclaiming "church" mean little or nothing to me. Those things which state outwardly, or are assumed to by their representation, "I am that in which God's order is found" or "this is the _place_ in which God's order is found" may, or may not bear the testimony of Jesus Christ.

He alone (Jesus Christ) is that in which, in whom, and by whom...God's order is found. God's logic. He is...that logic. He is "that place". That person. I don't believe I have been unclear about that...but again, I don't know. If and when I may have sought to elevate another (particularly myself) God knows...and in the manner in which you have said, "He is already _ahead of me_" in that, and I trust His mercy in any reproof.







ambush80 said:


> As opposed to a man that gets his walking orders from God Himself? The time has to end when people respect a person who says he "hears the voice of God".



Less respect? No respect? Is that what disqualifies _from respect_? I am already assured that there is an abundant difference between what says "I hear and have heard from God" and _expects_ respect because of its saying so ... has little in common with the One who has said "And ye shall be hated of all _men_ for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

He tells...what to expect.

Of course...it wouldn't be unusual for a man to make a wrong inference..."I am hated (or believe I am)..."therefore I must be fully a disciple". Each man is to not be unaware, nor lie, that his own noxious fume can be cause...and will be found out. Correction comes in that when acknowledged.

So, the man that_ may bristle_ at "lack of respect" is reproved. Put in his place.
Happy is the man too busy leaping for joy...to care how others may find him, being caught up with the One who sought him out, even, and despite what may remain...of noxious fume. Nevertheless, he knows he has an odor.

How man finds him..."he knows something" or "he's a complete fool" is measured perfectly to him till he can be moved by neither. Playing for "yays" and/or "boos" (as the _hero_ wrestler, or _villain_ wrestler might) just serves to show he remains a paid actor in theater. It's yet just a job.

So yes...some costumes are designed...to specifically (I would say) elicit a  response of respect "I am a hero"...and some lines may be delivered to do no less "I hear from God"..."respect me!".

But what is done behind closed doors is all being brought to light.
For nothing is hidden from Him...


----------



## WaltL1

> The specific wrongs are not what I'm debating here and you know it. You're trying to deflect from facing your own contradiction, (which I have repeatedly pointed out to you) by placing a burden of proof on me to produce a list.
> The list is already started. Your boy Walt got so disgusted at me when he thought I was for slavery, that now he won't even talk to me. Apparently he firmly believes slavery is wrong. But in the next breath he says there are no absolute wrongs. Explain that one to me, then we can move on.





bullethead said:


> Deflection at it's finest welder...
> 
> Today, right now in this country Slavery is wrong.
> 200 years ago  and earlier slavery was accepted in this country and by men that you say used god to found this country.
> Which is ABSOLUTE?
> Slavery still happens in the world. Just like if you were born in a Muslim country, you'd be worshipping Allah...if you were born in a country where slavery was legal...you think it was absolutey right.
> 
> If "we" get our morals from god why do they vary?
> 
> How do you and I know what is absolutely right?
> How do you and I know what is absolutely wrong?
> 
> If these absolutes come from your god HOW do we know them? Where can I get the list?


What is being missed is the difference between INDIVIDUAL absolutes and some God given set of absolutes that have always been wrong, always will be wrong and is wrong everywhere.
Welder is blending the two together.
Slavery -
Individual absolute - Wrong. Bad. Disgusting. Is never right.
Some "Master List" absolute - Obviously not. Slavery is still practiced. Slavery was practiced. Was accepted as being ok. Now, here where we are its not. In some places still "ok". It changes as society changes.
Certainly not an absolute because absolutes don't change.
That's how we can say slavery is always bad in one breath and say there are no absolutes in the other.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> To be honest I'd have to admit I don't know.
> I don't know many things. I don't know who is, or was relying on what, in a situation I am not given to know. But since you seem to be fully engaged feel free to tell me. Who prayed to whom...and for what, who asked of whom, and for what. I only truly know of your testimony to the situation...I don't even know that anyone prayed...or have said they did. But if you know of someone's prayer, or prayers...and to whom, well, I am also not ignorant of your previous handling of such testimony.
> 
> You seem to be about doing the very same things of which you accuse others.
> On one hand you say "I don't believe these were men of god" and yet in more than a few of your posts you refer to them as that.  How many times have you mentioned "this was done in his (His) house?" You could go back and read. I have made it clear that to myself...men in robes, collars, places with placards proclaiming "church" mean little or nothing to me. Those things which state outwardly, or are assumed to by their representation, "I am that in which God's order is found" or "this is the _place_ in which God's order is found" may, or may not bear the testimony of Jesus Christ.
> 
> He alone (Jesus Christ) is that in which, in whom, and by whom...God's order is found. God's logic. He is...that logic. He is "that place". That person. I don't believe I have been unclear about that...but again, I don't know. If and when I may have sought to elevate another (particularly myself) God knows...and in the manner in which you have said, "He is already _ahead of me_" in that, and I trust His mercy in any reproof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less respect? No respect? Is that what disqualifies _from respect_? I am already assured that there is an abundant difference between what says "I hear and have heard from God" and _expects_ respect because of its saying so ... has little in common with the One who has said "And ye shall be hated of all _men_ for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
> 
> He tells...what to expect.
> 
> Of course...it wouldn't be unusual for a man to make a wrong inference..."I am hated (or believe I am)..."therefore I must be fully a disciple". Each man is to not be unaware, nor lie, that his own noxious fume can be cause...and will be found out. Correction comes in that when acknowledged.
> 
> So, the man that_ may bristle_ at "lack of respect" is reproved. Put in his place.
> Happy is the man too busy leaping for joy...to care how others may find him, being caught up with the One who sought him out, even, and despite what may remain...of noxious fume. Nevertheless, he knows he has an odor.
> 
> How man finds him..."he knows something" or "he's a complete fool" is measured perfectly to him till he can be moved by neither. Playing for "yays" and/or "boos" (as the _hero_ wrestler, or _villain_ wrestler might) just serves to show he remains a paid actor in theater. It's yet just a job.
> 
> So yes...some costumes are designed...to specifically (I would say) elicit a  response of respect "I am a hero"...and some lines may be delivered to do no less "I hear from God"..."respect me!".
> 
> But what is done behind closed doors is all being brought to light.
> For nothing is hidden from Him...





> As opposed to a man that gets his walking orders from God Himself? The time has to end when people respect a person who says he "hears the voice of God".


 


> Less respect? No respect? Is that what disqualifies _from respect_?


I think I would have to reserve judgement until I see what the dude does with these voices that he hears.
He can skip through a field of daisies praising God and that's cool with me as long as these voices don't tell him that everybody else is supposed to follow the voices too


----------



## welderguy

Walt quoted 
"That's how we can say slavery is always bad in one breath and say there are no absolutes in the other."

Still a contradiction. An absolute wrong does not depend on a majority of society not accepting it to be wrong. It's just wrong all the time, no exceptions. Ever.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt quoted
> "That's how we can say slavery is always bad in one breath and say there are no absolutes in the other."
> 
> Still a contradiction. An absolute wrong does not depend on a majority of society not accepting it to be wrong. It's just wrong all the time, no exceptions. Ever.


I believe Bullet is waiting on the list from you of these "absolutes" that have always been, has never changed and are followed by everybody everywhere.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I believe Bullet is waiting on the list from you of these "absolutes" that have always been, has never changed and are followed by everybody everywhere.



I'm still waiting for him to address his contradiction.


----------



## Madman

If I might interject. Here is the list:

Love God.
Love your neighbor.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> To be honest I'd have to admit I don't know.
> I don't know many things. I don't know who is, or was relying on what, in a situation I am not given to know. But since you seem to be fully engaged feel free to tell me. Who prayed to whom...and for what, who asked of whom, and for what. I only truly know of your testimony to the situation...I don't even know that anyone prayed...or have said they did. But if you know of someone's prayer, or prayers...and to whom, well, I am also not ignorant of your previous handling of such testimony.
> 
> You seem to be about doing the very same things of which you accuse others.
> On one hand you say "I don't believe these were men of god" and yet in more than a few of your posts you refer to them as that.  How many times have you mentioned "this was done in his (His) house?" You could go back and read. I have made it clear that to myself...men in robes, collars, places with placards proclaiming "church" mean little or nothing to me. Those things which state outwardly, or are assumed to by their representation, "I am that in which God's order is found" or "this is the _place_ in which God's order is found" may, or may not bear the testimony of Jesus Christ.
> 
> He alone (Jesus Christ) is that in which, in whom, and by whom...God's order is found. God's logic. He is...that logic. He is "that place". That person. I don't believe I have been unclear about that...but again, I don't know. If and when I may have sought to elevate another (particularly myself) God knows...and in the manner in which you have said, "He is already _ahead of me_" in that, and I trust His mercy in any reproof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less respect? No respect? Is that what disqualifies _from respect_? I am already assured that there is an abundant difference between what says "I hear and have heard from God" and _expects_ respect because of its saying so ... has little in common with the One who has said "And ye shall be hated of all _men_ for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
> 
> He tells...what to expect.
> 
> Of course...it wouldn't be unusual for a man to make a wrong inference..."I am hated (or believe I am)..."therefore I must be fully a disciple". Each man is to not be unaware, nor lie, that his own noxious fume can be cause...and will be found out. Correction comes in that when acknowledged.
> 
> So, the man that_ may bristle_ at "lack of respect" is reproved. Put in his place.
> Happy is the man too busy leaping for joy...to care how others may find him, being caught up with the One who sought him out, even, and despite what may remain...of noxious fume. Nevertheless, he knows he has an odor.
> 
> How man finds him..."he knows something" or "he's a complete fool" is measured perfectly to him till he can be moved by neither. Playing for "yays" and/or "boos" (as the _hero_ wrestler, or _villain_ wrestler might) just serves to show he remains a paid actor in theater. It's yet just a job.
> 
> So yes...some costumes are designed...to specifically (I would say) elicit a  response of respect "I am a hero"...and some lines may be delivered to do no less "I hear from God"..."respect me!".
> 
> But what is done behind closed doors is all being brought to light.
> For nothing is hidden from Him...



I got my info from victim interviews in articles.

If you will take the time to read back you will find that for the sake of this entire conversation I am using the believers premise that HimHeOne exists and am going with their(yours included) claims that HimHeOne is All powerful, All knowing and helps people who happen to get into all types of situations.
I personally do not think any men of the cloth are closer to or actually represent any god because I don't think that their version of a god exists. Yet for the sake of millions of people around the world who believe it and count on it.. and because of the claims of the Religion heirarchy these clergy (pick a form and denomination) ARE in fact sold as The Representatives of HimHeOne and the Churches in which they conduct their LEGAL ceremonies and rituals are touted as being HimHeOne's houses.(Society's rules,  I just follow em) Since early man there have been Shawmen, Priests, Rabbis, Reverends, Pastors, Monks, Cardinals, Bishops Popes and hundreds of others worldwide that are considered Representatives of various gods,(Wait, come to think of it..Lets throw yer buddy Saul/Paul in there too. He fits the criteria. He is a man...tops in your criteria for liar/liar author...he formed the first church and headed it so he CANNOT be an official representative of HimHeOne * see your men are liars and clergy are not representatives rule) but that only seems to be the case until it is shown that You've been duped yet again because your claims do not match the facts and then you say "Ohhh THOSE guys don't count!!!" Well if not maybe you want to rethink the legalities and official-ness of your Wedding Ceremony, Marriage Certificate (Gawwwd forbid if these charlatans that performed your ceremonies were phonies, erase all those milestone celebrations of years married. Double Gawwwd forbid the standings of your children in the eyes of HimHeOne if they were all had out of wedlock!!) Who is going to re-Baptize you? Who is going to Marry you (Official this time) in the eyes of HimHeOne?...but AGAIN, since you and Welder, and Spotlight want to avoid the real questions and are unable to deal with not being able to back up your assertions, statements and claims...you want to revert back to finding a technicality in "Our" replies as if it somehow negates the points we make which are based soley off of the  claims,assertions and statements that YOU  make without a shred of evidence to back them up,EVER,...slide....well again you are wrong.
I/we are just using the information that you give us and are asking you to back it up. If it is true (ABSOLUTELY TRUE as you staunch believers seem to think is a possibility) why is it so easy for us to pick it apart with facts and for you to be unable to defend with facts?

Still you state that "nothing is hidden from him", and if indeed HimHeOne helps people like you say HimHeOne does...why didn't HimHeOne help in just these thousand instances alone where believers/victims (incorrectly according to you) believed that they were in good hands because they were (again incorrect according to you) in God's house with God's representatives??


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm still waiting for him to address his contradiction.


There is no contradiction.
You are just insisting there is.
Show him there is instead of just insisting there is.
Your list would do that.
Get it now?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt quoted
> "That's how we can say slavery is always bad in one breath and say there are no absolutes in the other."
> 
> Still a contradiction. An absolute wrong does not depend on a majority of society not accepting it to be wrong. It's just wrong all the time, no exceptions. Ever.


Welder, buddy, pal, keeper and knower of all that is Absolute...

How do you know that slavery is or has always been bad? Where is it shown that it is an absolute? Show us where it is written in stone, by your God, all of the absolute rights and all the absolute wrongs.
Stop with your constant claims and back them up. It is long past put up or shut up time.

We are all slaves in some form or another. We accept what we are willing to put up with.

Pay your house off and quit your job or Retire thinking that you are set and done with Bills.Stop paying your taxes and see how long you "own" it. In a way, we are slaves to our lifestyles, society, gov't.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm still waiting for him to address his contradiction.


You providing the "list of absolutes" would IMMEDIATELY squash my claim.

I do not have a contradiction. I said that there seems to be no absolutes. They change as people want and allow.

You then claim there are absolutes and try to include YOUR statement in with mine and then ASK ME to explain it as if I made it.

Welder, you are confounded and confused by your own doing.

Buck up and provide a list of absolutes (you can't because all you have is YOUR thoughts on what is an absolute),  tell us where you got the list from (you can't because there is no absolute list giver), and you will literally be providing mankind with a great gift.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Here is my list;
                              Rape, murder, arson, and rape.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> If I might interject. Here is the list:
> 
> Love God.
> Love your neighbor.



Problems with the list:
Source
Universally found to not be followed.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is my list;
> Rape, murder, arson, and rape.


And that is my point, we all have a personal list. Some like to pretend that their list is their gods list too.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Here is my list;
> Rape, murder, arson, and rape.


We all have lines we won't cross, but history shows that for every line someone won't cross, someone else will.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> We all have lines we won't cross, but history shows that for every line someone won't cross, someone else will.



I have also noticed that people have used their religion to justify their actions in things like war or taking the lands of others. "Let's go under the pretense of spreading the gospel" as our excuse to take their little island.
They get salvation and we get their natural resources.

I can see how we feel about this concept has changed as well.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Problems with the list:
> Source



I apologize. I thought you were asking for a list of Christian right and wrong.  From a Christian prospective, there is a God, and he made the list.  If a Christian lives by those "rules" then all of the others will naturally be.



bullethead said:


> Universally found to not be followed.



If the list is dependent upon universal adherence then there can never be a list, therefore you question is moot, but I believe you and I could agree on list that would be most acceptable to us both, no matter how many people adhered to them.

Just as your list with Art.  There is no universal adherence to the belief that rape, murder, and arson are wrong, therefore they should not be on the list.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> I apologize. I thought you were asking for a list of Christian right and wrong.  From a Christian prospective, there is a God, and he made the list.  If a Christian lives by those "rules" then all of the others will naturally be.
> 
> 
> 
> If the list is dependent upon universal adherence then there can never be a list, therefore you question is moot, but I believe you and I could agree on list that would be most acceptable to us both, no matter how many people adhered to them.
> 
> Just as your list with Art.  There is no universal adherence to the belief that rape, murder, and arson are wrong, therefore they should not be on the list.


We have to establish that there is an absolute source and that source has established absolute morals/rules and that those absolute moral/rules are available to be seen/known so that EVERYONE can know what they are.
It is not exclusive to Christians if in fact Christians truly believe that God made ALL humans and instilled in them his wishes.

Absolute goes above and beyond "christianity" if what Christians say is true.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> I apologize. I thought you were asking for a list of Christian right and wrong.  From a Christian prospective, there is a God, and he made the list.  If a Christian lives by those "rules" then all of the others will naturally be.
> 
> 
> 
> If the list is dependent upon universal adherence then there can never be a list, therefore you question is moot, but I believe you and I could agree on list that would be most acceptable to us both, no matter how many people adhered to them.
> 
> Just as your list with Art.  There is no universal adherence to the belief that rape, murder, and arson are wrong, therefore they should not be on the list.





> If the list is dependent upon universal adherence then there can never be a list


YAHTZEE! BINGO!
No list because no universal absolutes.
And therefore no contradiction.
Unless you just want insist there is one.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> We have to establish that there is an absolute source and that source has established absolute morals/rules and that those absolute moral/rules are available to be seen/known so that EVERYONE can know what they are.
> It is not exclusive to Christians if in fact Christians truly believe that God made ALL humans and instilled in them his wishes.
> 
> Absolute goes above and beyond "christianity" if what Christians say is true.


Exactly. Absolute means no exceptions.
Any society that worshipped gods before Christianity even existed, worship different gods than Christianity, worship no gods.....
Are all exceptions.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I think I would have to reserve judgement until I see what the dude does with these voices that he hears.
> He can skip through a field of daisies praising God and that's cool with me as long as these voices don't tell him that everybody else is supposed to follow the voices too


How would you know...that as he skips he doesn't hear that?

Am I guessing that you may mean "as long as" he _doesn't do anything coercive to that end? _Make excursions into the will of another_ unlawfully?_


Not to worry. The faith of the Son of God has never been made_ legal_ by the world. It's _all _it finds illegitimate.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> How would you know...that as he skips he doesn't hear that?
> 
> Am I guessing that you may mean "as long as" he _doesn't do anything coercive to that end? _Make excursions into the will of another_ unlawfully?_
> 
> 
> Not to worry. The faith of the Son of God has never been made_ legal_ by the world. It's _all _it finds illegitimate.


Hmmm... Yes that would be more accurate.
But even then Im cool with him gathering up anybody that wants to follow the voices he hears too and they can all skip together through a field of daisies.
If they stop skipping and decide they are going to interject these voices into our education system, politics, laws. etc......
Then I got a few issues.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Hmmm... Yes that would be more accurate.
> But even then Im cool with him gathering up anybody that wants to follow the voices he hears too and they can all skip together through a field of daisies.
> If they stop skipping and decide they are going to interject these voices into our education system, politics, laws. etc......
> Then I got a few issues.



Fair enough...but why?

I am not defending anything here, nor even much against...but what is it about _that..._that is troubling?


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> YAHTZEE! BINGO!
> No list because no universal absolutes.
> And therefore no contradiction.
> Unless you just want insist there is one.


Contradictions?  I never mentioned contradictions.

For you there may no absolute, or so you say, however I believe there is an ultimate law giver who gives an absolute law.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder, buddy, pal, keeper and knower of all that is Absolute...
> 
> How do you know that slavery is or has always been bad? Where is it shown that it is an absolute? Show us where it is written in stone, by your God, all of the absolute rights and all the absolute wrongs.
> Stop with your constant claims and back them up. It is long past put up or shut up time.
> 
> We are all slaves in some form or another. We accept what we are willing to put up with.
> 
> Pay your house off and quit your job or Retire thinking that you are set and done with Bills.Stop paying your taxes and see how long you "own" it. In a way, we are slaves to our lifestyles, society, gov't.



Show where I said slavery was wrong. I've remained neutral on it this whole discussion. Your apology accepted in advance.
I believe it was Ambush who initiated that idea. Then Walt even got his feelings hurt over it. (But they both now say there's no absolute wrongs). Go figure.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> If they stop skipping and decide they are going to interject these voices into our education system, politics, laws. etc......
> Then I got a few issues.



You are very fortunate to have been raised in a society seeped in 2100 years of Judaeo/Christian influence.

Many other societies would not let you hold your views, me either for that matter, or at least verbalize them. 
Most laws are a codification of Judaeo/Christian society.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Contradictions?  I never mentioned contradictions.
> 
> For you there may no absolute, or so you say, however I believe there is an ultimate law giver who gives an absolute law.


You have showed us your beliefs.
Where can the rest of mankind find the absolute laws?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Show where I said slavery was wrong. I've remained neutral on it this whole discussion. Your apology accepted in advance.
> I believe it was Ambush who initiated that idea. Then Walt even got his feelings hurt over it. (But they both now say there's no absolute wrongs). Go figure.


No no no no no...welder, not AGAIN... 
YOU have been harping and basing your last bunch of posts on something that you asserted that I said, I have addressed your issues and asked you to explain your claims and each time you pop back in you switch up the blame game to someone else.

I dont care what you think Walt said or what you think Ambush said.
I have directly and purposely and specifically conversed with you and you refuse to answer me with anything that resembles a factually explained reply. 

Is slavery wrong Welder?
Why?
It is wrong everywhere?
Why?
Is there an Absolute source that says slavery is either wrong or right?
Who is the source.
Where is it written?
Who wrote it?

And for the last dang time..
Come up with some facts that back up your claims or stop wasting our time in here.

I am not asking you to do anything that you yourself have not made a claim about. Time to step up, in fact long past due.

I still have not forgotten about An All Knowing, All Powerful god that interacts in human situations that you and most every Christian that I know of claims.
Where was he when 1000 children were being molested and abused in his house by his representatives?
Was he there and refused to do anything? Why
Was he there and couldn't do anything? Why
Was he not there? Why

But first buck up and address all the things asked of you and that were only asked of you because YOU brought it up and made claims.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> You have showed us your beliefs.
> Where can the rest of mankind find the absolute laws?



The same way I found them, they were shown to me.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You are very fortunate to have been raised in a society seeped in 2100 years of Judaeo/Christian society.
> 
> Many other societies would not let you hold your views, me either for that matter, or at least verbalize them.
> Most laws are a codification of Judaeo/Christian society.


Who made the rules before Jesus got popular?
Who was the authority before civilization became the norm?
Who followed this authority way back when?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> The same way I found them, they were shown to me.


We are long past feelings, mental visions and invisible friends talking to people.

You claim to have Absolute morals given by an Absolute authority and when asked to provide them, which should be Absolutely easy given the claims of believers, we have pages of ABSOLUTELY no tangible facts or evidence that ANTHING you and Israel  and Welder and Spotlite claim are true. Hollow assertions that are expected to be taken on word. Nothing in the world operates like that except for people who know they have no evidence but continue to deflect, stall, nitpick and try to dance around the claims that they themselves make when asked for proof.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> I still have not forgotten about An All Knowing, All Powerful god that interacts in human situations that you and most every Christian that I know of claims.
> Where was he when 1000 children were being molested and abused in his house by his representatives?
> Was he there and refused to do anything? Why
> Was he there and couldn't do anything? Why
> Was he not there? Why


God determined it to happen.

Ultimate cause.

Simple.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> God determined it to happen.
> 
> Ultimate cause.
> 
> Simple.


Thanks for the Honest answer. I've always appreciated that about you.
Frightening, but honest.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> We are long past feelings, mental visions and invisible friends talking to people.
> 
> You claim to have Absolute morals given by an Absolute authority and when asked to provide them, which should be Absolutely easy given the claims of believers, we have pages of ABSOLUTELY no tangible facts or evidence that ANTHING you and Israel  and Welder and Spotlite claim are true. Hollow assertions that are expected to be taken on word. Nothing in the world operates like that except for people who know they have no evidence but continue to deflect, stall, nitpick and try to dance around the claims that they themselves make when asked for proof.


No mental visions, it started with practicle advise from people who cared about me.

A logical conclusion, similar to people like CS Lewis.

The other group that makes groundless accertions are the atheists.  Like you.
Sorry you claim not to be an antheist.  What diety to you claim?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Who made the rules before Jesus got popular?
> Who was the authority before civilization became the norm?
> Who followed this authority way back when?


Who said Jesus made the rules?  You are makeing assumptions that I do not agree with.

No wonder you dispise Christians, you dont know anything about their beliefs.


----------



## Israel

The authority has never been but who the authority always is.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> No mental visions, it started with practicle advise from people who cared about me.
> 
> A logical conclusion, similar to people like CS Lewis.
> 
> The other group that makes groundless accertions are the atheists.  Like you.
> Sorry you claim not to be an antheist.  What diety to you claim?



So you know what god wants from advice from others...ok.

Lots of people make groundless claims every day all over the world. Atheists and Christians included.  But in here the Atheists and Agnostics have a way of making claims and in the very next sentence backing them up with facts and continuing to do so over the next bunch of posts as the believers reply with assertions and claims with ZERO facts to back it up.
This thread is proof of that.
You say "like you" to me. And that is where it ends. ZERO fact to back it up.
Meanwhile I have backed up everything that I have said with facts and logic that has been unable to be refuted.

I claim that I don't know if there is a God or not. I claim that I guess in some way it could be possible. I claim that if there is a God,  that I don't pretend to know it or that such a complex being is even knowable with our minds.


----------



## Madman

"Christianity".... In a sense, it creates, rather than solves, the problem of pain, for pain would be no problem unless, side by side with our daily experience of this painful world, we had what we think a good assurance that ultimate reality is righteous and loving.
C.S. Lewis - The Problem of Pain


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> So you know what god wants from advice from others...ok.
> 
> Lots of people make groundless claims every day all over the world. Atheists and Christians included.  But in here the Atheists and Agnostics have a way of making claims and in the very next sentence backing them up with facts and continuing to do so over the next bunch of posts as the believers reply with assertions and claims with ZERO facts to back it up.
> This thread is proof of that.
> You say "like you" to me. And that is where it ends. ZERO fact to back it up.
> Meanwhile I have backed up everything that I have said with facts and logic that has been unable to be refuted.
> 
> I claim that I don't know if there is a God or not. I claim that I guess in some way it could be possible. I claim that if there is a God,  that I don't pretend to know it or that such a complex being is even knowable with our minds.


You continue to latch onto the middle of the conversation, much like the youth who chooses to decry how calculas makes no sense, all the while refuseing to learn the basics of addition and subtraction.


bullethead said:


> So you know what god wants from advice from others...ok.
> 
> Lots of people make groundless claims every day all over the world. Atheists and Christians included.  But in here the Atheists and Agnostics have a way of making claims and in the very next sentence backing them up with facts and continuing to do so over the next bunch of posts as the believers reply with assertions and claims with ZERO facts to back it up.
> This thread is proof of that.
> You say "like you" to me. And that is where it ends. ZERO fact to back it up.
> Meanwhile I have backed up everything that I have said with facts and logic that has been unable to be refuted.
> 
> I claim that I don't know if there is a God or not. I claim that I guess in some way it could be possible. I claim that if there is a God,  that I don't pretend to know it or that such a complex being is even knowable with our minds.


I have never claimed to know him.  I believe to know some things about him.

Many claims are made by atheists with no more proof than you claim believers provide.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> The same way I found them, they were shown to me.



What about on a tiny island 400 years ago? They had morals but not from the shared gospel.  Were their morals also from the God of Abraham?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You are very fortunate to have been raised in a society seeped in 2100 years of Judaeo/Christian influence.
> 
> Many other societies would not let you hold your views, me either for that matter, or at least verbalize them.
> Most laws are a codification of Judaeo/Christian society.



How many christians were around BEFORE Christ?
How many centuries did it take for Christianity to take a hold and have an influence on leaders?
How many civilizations and religions were around and before Judiasm?

Who was providing the absolute Morals, laws and influence then?
Not your god...

Don't  be so quick to jump to conclusions before you do all of your research about me.
I don't despise christians. I am well studied in its history and practices.
You are reverting to quick assumptions and are making incorrect assertions because you feel attacked and have to go to your safe space. 

You specifically mentioned Judeo/Christian influence in the last 2100 years. That DOES include Jesus/God does it not??
I asked you WHO influenced the people of the world BEFORE that. 
Pay attention


----------



## Artfuldodger

Morals of the Philippines before the Christian Spaniards came? They probably believed in some type of false god or gods. Did they get their morals from having just a belief in a god or gods?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You continue to latch onto the middle of the conversation, much like the youth who chooses to decry how calculas makes no sense, all the while refuseing to learn the basics of addition and subtraction.
> 
> I have never claimed to know him.  I believe to know some things about him.
> 
> Many claims are made by atheists with no more proof than you claim believers provide.


Like I said before lots of people make claims with no proof. But in here...the amount of evidence constantly provided by Atheists and Agnostics far outweighs and refutes the claims made by believers. I won't include Apologists because there are so few that can actually explain their beliefs in Apologetic ways that they don't take part in many conversations.
This thread is proof of that.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If one were to study two remote islands where on one they believe in the God, Kanaloa  and on the other island they didn't believe in any God.

Would the people on the island that worshiped  Kanaloa have morals and the people on the other island have no morals? Does it take a belief in a god, any god or God for a society to develop morals?

If morals do require a god or God, is it just a belief that instills the morals? Even if the God is not real. Suppose one does believe in Kanaloa. It has been passed down from generations that lust is wrong. That if you have lust in your groin, Kanaloa  will make you impotent.

Is this why the people on that island have morals and on the other island they don't, if religion is needed?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> How many christians were around BEFORE Christ?
> How many centuries did it take for Christianity to take a hold and have an influence on leaders?
> How many civilizations and religions were around and before Judiasm?
> 
> Who was providing the absolute Morals, laws and influence then?
> Not your god...
> 
> Don't  be so quick to jump to conclusions before you do all of your research about me.
> I don't despise christians. I am well studied in its history and practices.
> You are reverting to quick assumptions and are making incorrect assertions because you feel attacked and have to go to your safe space.
> 
> You specifically mentioned Judeo/Christian influence in the last 2100 years. That DOES include Jesus/God does it not??
> I asked you WHO influenced the people of the world BEFORE that.
> Pay attention


J 
To be so well studied you sure do miss a lot. If you think i would care to "do my research on you" then you think too highly of yourself.
I know all I care to know based on your remarks here.
Judeo does not refer to Jesus but Jewish.  I would argue God has revealed himself and his morality as long as man has walked the planet, which is long before Christ came on the earthly seen.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Like I said before lots of people make claims with no proof. But in here...the amount of evidence constantly provided by Atheists and Agnostics far outweighs and refutes the claims made by believers. I won't include Apologists because there are so few that can actually explain their beliefs in Apologetic ways that they don't take part in many conversations.
> This thread is proof of that.


Do I make those claims you mention?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think that one's religion can help shape or instill morals on a nation or individuals but even that is up to the religion of the individual or nation.
Even those morals change over time. We justify the changes within the concepts of our beliefs. Think slavery or women's rights or stealing foreign lands.

Whether that nation be Hindu, Christian, or Buddhist. I think it would be hard to find a nation without some type of a religious belief now. Maybe there was a time as man ventured away from the Garden and lost touch with the God of Abraham. When he walked or sailed to ancient far away lands and lost his image.
Maybe over time man lived without a belief in a god or Gods but decided to make up gods because they lost the Garden story as they ventured out.

I forgot about the Flood, but as they ventured out from the Ark if that was worldwide. Anyway man settled all around the world and became isolated from his origins and a belief in the God of Abraham.

Man forgot God. Then as he needed explanations for the unknown and unable to explain, made knew gods. The new gods were fake but since they thought they were real, provided the source of their morals.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> J
> To be so well studied you sure do miss a lot. If you think i would care to "do my research on you" then you think too highly of yourself.
> I know all I care to know based on your remarks here.
> Judeo does not refer to Jesus but Jewish.  I would argue God has revealed himself and his morality as long as man has walked the planet, which is long before Christ came on the earthly seen.


Lololol, no wayyyy Judeo is Jewish?
I just learned that 43  years ago. And I am 49.

If you know all you need to know about me then I wouldn't gave to catch you up to speed every time you make incorrect statements about me.

There were people and religions on the planet LONG before the first Jew.

You state that God has revealed himself since the first man has walked the planet,  but I do not see any argument backed with facts to back that up.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> If one were to study two remote islands where on one they believe in the God, Kanaloa  and on the other island they didn't believe in any God.
> 
> Would the people on the island that worshiped  Kanaloa have morals and the people on the other island have no morals? Does it take a belief in a god, any god or God for a society to develop morals?
> 
> If morals do require a god or God, is it just a belief that instills the morals? Even if the God is not real. Suppose one does believe in Kanaloa. It has been passed down from generations that lust is wrong. That if you have lust in your groin, Kanaloa  will make you impotent.
> 
> Is this why the people on that island have morals and on the other island they don't, if religion is needed?





> Does it take a belief in a god, any god or God for a society to develop morals?


That's an interesting question.
Man has worshipped some sort of "god"(s) for pretty dang far back.
So really the question is, just as we are arguing today is, were the god(s) responsible for the morals or did they just develop them from living in society and are giving their god or whatever they called it, the credit for it?
And how far do you want to go back in man's history?
At one time we didn't have the brain capacity to even imagine a god yet man still lived in "societys" that require the development of a certain set of morals for that society to survive.
Even monkeys, who obviously aren't worshipping a god, live in little societies where they all learn whats acceptable behaviors and whats not to get along in their society.
Which basically is what morals are.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Do I make those claims you mention?





> I would argue God has revealed himself and his morality as long as man has walked the planet, which is long before Christ came on the earthly seen.



Yep


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> God determined it to happen.
> 
> Ultimate cause.
> 
> Simple.



The same God that could torture your grandmother for eternity?

God determined it to happen.

Ultimate cause.

Simple.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> That's an interesting question.
> Man has worshipped some sort of "god"(s) for pretty dang far back.
> So really the question is, just as we are arguing today is, were the god(s) responsible for the morals or did they just develop them from living in society and are giving their god or whatever they called it, the credit for it?
> And how far do you want to go back in man's history?
> At one time we didn't have the brain capacity to even imagine a god yet man still lived in "societys" that require the development of a certain set of morals for that society to survive.
> Even monkeys, who obviously aren't worshipping a god, live in little societies where they all learn whats acceptable behaviors and whats not to get along in their society.
> Which basically is what morals are.



Maybe it's part of our biological "image."


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Yep


You have a difficult time keeping up don't you?  An opinion vs. a fact.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You have a difficult time keeping up don't you?  An opinion vs. a fact.



You "could" argue, but didn't make a case for an argument.

The reason I seem behind is because I've lapped the pack a few times and am about to again.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Lololol, no wayyyy Judeo is Jewish?
> I just learned that 43  years ago. And I am 49.
> [QUOTE





bullethead said:


> Lololol, no wayyyy Judeo is Jewish?
> I just learned that 43  years ago. And I am 49.
> 
> If you know all you need to know about me then I wouldn't gave to catch you up to speed every time you make incorrect statements about me.
> 
> There were people and religions on the planet LONG before the first Jew.
> 
> You state that God has revealed himself since the first man has walked the planet,  but I do not see any argument backed with facts to back that up.


Talk of bringing up to speed.  I never said Judaism was the first religion.

Try to follow along.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe it's part of our biological "image."


Or it's because early man took what was taught to them by their elders and continued to seek their guidance when they were deceased. We have all done it.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> You "could" argue, but didn't make a case for an argument.
> 
> The reason I seem behind is because I've lapped the pack a few times and am about to again.


You want the calculas answers without learning addition.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Talk of bringing up to speed.  I never said Judaism was the first religion.
> 
> Try to follow along.


Nobody said you did.
You mentoned two religions that we get our influence from.
Those two religions got influenced from previous religions and so on and so on. They took what they liked, changed what they didnt like, and added what they wanted to make it their own. Including inventing gods.

None of those religions that were around prior mentioned anything about a god like the God of Abraham. The Jews clearly made up that story as a way to tell of their beginning...but history shows that they didn't go back far enough. There were many beginnings long before their beginning.

How was the God of Abraham influencing all those prior people and they have no mention of it?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You want the calculas answers without learning addition.


Another statement that is not only assertive but blatantly false.


----------



## welderguy

Ok, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this... The best I can tell, from hearing the atheist views in this thread is that pedophilia is very wrong. And, it's especially wrong when someone who claims to represent Christianity does it. BUT, I also hear from the atheists that it's only wrong as long as society doesn't accept it. The very moment society decides to accept it, then and only then, it suddenly becomes right.
Am I understanding it so far?
So, the low-down scumbag priest, that molested your son 10 years ago,( that you used to hate with a purple passion), could become just a good ole boy fishing buddy tomorrow (even though he molested your grandson today)?
That is, if society decides pedophilia is AOK.

That's what I have taken away from all that the "moral" atheists have said here.
Did I miss anything?


----------



## Israel

welderguy said:


> Ok, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this... The best I can tell, from hearing the atheist views in this thread is that pedophilia is very wrong. And, it's especially wrong when someone who claims to represent Christianity does it. BUT, I also hear from the atheists that it's only wrong as long as society doesn't accept it. The very moment society decides to accept it, then and only then, it suddenly becomes right.
> Am I understanding it so far?
> So, the low-down scumbag priest, that molested your son 10 years ago,( that you used to hate with a purple passion), could become just a good ole boy fishing buddy tomorrow (even though he molested your grandson today)?
> That is, if society decides pedophilia is AOK.
> 
> That's what I have taken away from all that the "moral" atheists have said here.
> Did I miss anything?


What is impossible for man is possible with God.

It's impossible for a man to not touch his own likes and dislikes...or in the extreme simplification his own loves and hates. And Jesus always speaks and spoke simply.

Do you remember this exchange? I'm sure you do.

It begins with this:

So He said to the Jews _who had believed_ Him, “If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

and ends with this:

“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple area. 

The truth...until God intervenes...is a curse to man. It is solely to be wiped out, stoned, put to death. Eradicated by whatever means. Even (especially) the cross...to be lifted up to shame. Here, he believes he shows the triumph of _his own truth_. Finally, completely, unequivocally. Only God can ever reveal to man what is, in truth, taking place...man's complete and utter confidence in _his own truth._..is death.

So we find Jesus speaking to "what believed Him" and uncovering what eventually no man can conceal...a _dire hatred_ of the truth. And _love of_ death.

This leaves man in the _totally untenable_ position. Where of himself he can see absolutely (to the very extreme) of _no way out_. Until this is revealed to a man, he is quite content with "his truth"...which he must, and will soon discover is nothing more nor less than, hatred of _the truth_.

And I believe you touch something in what you say.

There's an _untenability _in vilification. But, a man captivated by_ his own truth _cannot escape it. 

And so what may appear to some as a conversation about the "totally execrable" behavior of _some men_ is not long after revealed as simply another attempt to vilify the Christ.

But in all, it only reveals the truth of the dire necessity of God's Christ, and His coming to such as man hating the truth, which must, and cannot but _always result_ in truly execrable behavior. As they touch their love of death.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ok, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this... The best I can tell, from hearing the atheist views in this thread is that pedophilia is very wrong. And, it's especially wrong when someone who claims to represent Christianity does it. BUT, I also hear from the atheists that it's only wrong as long as society doesn't accept it. The very moment society decides to accept it, then and only then, it suddenly becomes right.
> Am I understanding it so far?
> So, the low-down scumbag priest, that molested your son 10 years ago,( that you used to hate with a purple passion), could become just a good ole boy fishing buddy tomorrow (even though he molested your grandson today)?
> That is, if society decides pedophilia is AOK.
> 
> That's what I have taken away from all that the "moral" atheists have said here.
> Did I miss anything?


No Welder, as usual you do not understand it. History shows how morals evolve and change as humans evolve and change. History just a few hundred years ago in your own country that you say was founded on the principals and morals of your own God (which you STILL in a dozen posts refuse to provide us with a single absolute moral that comes from him) tells a different story than what you say. "Women" were married to much older men at 12 yrs old for just one example. Is that STILL ok today? It was acceptable to marry at 12 in a church under the eyes of your God with his blessing. Is that STILL acceptable? Tell us why.
You cannot provide any absolute morals or outside moral source to back up your claims and we have shown that the history of the world and the history of your religion back up what we have said.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> What is impossible for man is possible with God.
> 
> It's impossible for a man to not touch his own likes and dislikes...or in the extreme simplification his own loves and hates. And Jesus always speaks and spoke simply.
> 
> Do you remember this exchange? I'm sure you do.
> 
> It begins with this:
> 
> So He said to the Jews _who had believed_ Him, “If you continue in My word, you are truly My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
> 
> and ends with this:
> 
> “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple area.
> 
> The truth...until God intervenes...is a curse to man. It is solely to be wiped out, stoned, put to death. Eradicated by whatever means. Even (especially) the cross...to be lifted up to shame. Here, he believes he shows the triumph of _his own truth_. Finally, completely, unequivocally. Only God can ever reveal to man what is, in truth, taking place...man's complete and utter confidence in _his own truth._..is death.
> 
> So we find Jesus speaking to "what believed Him" and uncovering what eventually no man can conceal...a _dire hatred_ of the truth. And _love of_ death.
> 
> This leaves man in the _totally untenable_ position. Where of himself he can see absolutely (to the very extreme) of _no way out_. Until this is revealed to a man, he is quite content with "his truth"...which he must, and will soon discover is nothing more nor less than, hatred of _the truth_.
> 
> And I believe you touch something in what you say.
> 
> There's an _untenability _in vilification. But, a man captivated by_ his own truth _cannot escape it.
> 
> And so what may appear to some as a conversation about the "totally execrable" behavior of _some men_ is not long after revealed as simply another attempt to vilify the Christ.
> 
> But in all, it only reveals the truth of the dire necessity of God's Christ, and His coming to such as man hating the truth, which must, and cannot but _always result_ in truly execrable behavior. As they touch their love of death.


The safe space rants don't address what you constantly claim.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Ok, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this... The best I can tell, from hearing the atheist views in this thread is that pedophilia is very wrong. And, it's especially wrong when someone who claims to represent Christianity does it. BUT, I also hear from the atheists that it's only wrong as long as society doesn't accept it. The very moment society decides to accept it, then and only then, it suddenly becomes right.
> Am I understanding it so far?
> So, the low-down scumbag priest, that molested your son 10 years ago,( that you used to hate with a purple passion), could become just a good ole boy fishing buddy tomorrow (even though he molested your grandson today)?
> That is, if society decides pedophilia is AOK.
> 
> That's what I have taken away from all that the "moral" atheists have said here.
> Did I miss anything?


Yes. Everything. From start to finish.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Ok, I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this... The best I can tell, from hearing the atheist views in this thread is that pedophilia is very wrong. And, it's especially wrong when someone who claims to represent Christianity does it. BUT, I also hear from the atheists that it's only wrong as long as society doesn't accept it. The very moment society decides to accept it, then and only then, it suddenly becomes right.
> Am I understanding it so far?
> So, the low-down scumbag priest, that molested your son 10 years ago,( that you used to hate with a purple passion), could become just a good ole boy fishing buddy tomorrow (even though he molested your grandson today)?
> That is, if society decides pedophilia is AOK.
> 
> That's what I have taken away from all that the "moral" atheists have said here.
> Did I miss anything?


Welder you are literally living through moral and ethical changes within your lifetime.
Our grandparents complained about our parents, our parents complained about us,we complain about our kids.
There are huge moral changes happening that grip the headlines every single day. Majority certainly rules. What was wrong 50 years ago is now right. It is challenged but when we die off, it will be the norm


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Welder you are literally living through moral and ethical changes within your lifetime.
> Our grandparents complained about our parents, our parents complained about us,we complain about our kids.
> There are huge moral changes happening that grip the headlines every single day. Majority certainly rules. What was wrong 50 years ago is now right. It is challenged but when we die off, it will be the norm


 perhaps.  Assuming the continuation of the current trend, which will come first, bestiality or pedophilia?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> perhaps.  Assuming the continuation of the current trend, which will come first, bestiality or pedophilia?


Bruce Jenner


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> perhaps.  Assuming the continuation of the current trend, which will come first, bestiality or pedophilia?


I cant help but laugh every time the "sex with animals next" argument gets thrown out 
Its a classic!


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I cant help but laugh every time the "sex with animals next" argument gets thrown out
> Its a classic!


Yeah,it depends upon what they want more.


----------



## hummerpoo

I give up on you guys.

Mine was a sociologically based question,
not a theologically based question.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I give up on you guys.
> 
> Mine was a sociologically based question,
> not a theologically based question.


Well how do you think we would know such things or even think about such things? My hope is neither.
But like the history of our very own country shows, age seems to vary at times.

What are your guesses?


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> perhaps.  Assuming the continuation of the current trend, which will come first, bestiality or pedophilia?



One may argue that we have already been through the pedophilia stage. 
In some of their defense, the lifespan wasn't that long so, they had to get to procreating.

In ancient and medieval times, girls were married before they were 15.
*Muhammad* was undoubtedly a _*pedophile. *_

_*But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.  Numbers 31:1-18*_


----------



## ambush80

hummerpoo said:


> perhaps.  Assuming the continuation of the current trend, which will come first, bestiality or pedophilia?





hummerpoo said:


> I give up on you guys.
> 
> Mine was a sociologically based question,
> not a theologically based question.



I'll play.  I love these games.

Lets define the current trend first. And lets stay with "Western Christianity" just for a minute (since pedophilia is already OK in the Middle East).

I think that instead of bestiality or pedophilia ever becoming accepted that we will allow it with robots, sex dolls.  I sometimes ask people if they think baby sex bots should be illegal. People are surprisingly divided across differing religious, political, and educational backgrounds.  Even then, the division might change if I ask them about animal sex bots.  They're already being controversially used, along with virtual reality to try to help pedophiles control their urges. 

On moral grounds I focus on consent.  Grown ups shouldn't take advantage of children but a horse, if it's not tied up, can vote with its feet.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What about a homosexual canine puppy sexbot?


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> What about a homosexual canine puppy sexbot?



Did you check Amazon?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Seriously though I wonder too what the next socially acceptable moral change will be within the Christian nations.
Slavery is gone. Women have equal rights. Women can wear pants. It appears homosexuality is beginning to be accepted. Men can be eliminate.
Blacks and Whites can marry. The states have government gambling.
Christians are more tolerant of other religions. Bankruptcy isn't frowned upon. It doesn't have the stigma it once did.
Couples live together without marriage. Married men only have one wife now.
I never thought I'd see the day where it was OK for a Christian to have a drink in the South. That was a big change. Weird that smoking was OK though. 
Men and women both wear a lot of piercings and tattoos. I never thought I'd see that to the extreme that it is.

Not that I'm saying all of this is right or wrong, just pointing out changes.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Seriously though I wonder too what the next socially acceptable moral change will be within the Christian nations.
> Slavery is gone. Women have equal rights. Women can wear pants. It appears homosexuality is beginning to be accepted. Men can be eliminate.
> Blacks and Whites can marry. The states have government gambling.
> Christians are more tolerant of other religions. Bankruptcy isn't frowned upon. It doesn't have the stigma it once did.
> Couples live together without marriage. Married men only have one wife now.
> I never thought I'd see the day where it was OK for a Christian to have a drink in the South. That was a big change. Weird that smoking was OK though.
> Men and women both wear a lot of piercings and tattoos. I never thought I'd see that to the extreme that it is.
> 
> Not that I'm saying all of this is right or wrong, just pointing out changes.



Legal weed.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> What about a homosexual canine puppy sexbot?



I imagined a robotic platform with interchangeable "skins".  Eww.  I know.  Do we want freedom?  It could be programmed to act all kinds of different ways; aggressively, if that's your pleasure.


----------



## ambush80

Nudging this back to the OP, what if those priests had access to sex bots?


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Nudging this back to the OP, what if those priests had access to sex bots?



What if none of them had to take a vow of celibacy?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Nudging this back to the OP, what if those priests had access to sex bots?


Go for it. 
They should do away with the vow of celibacy. I don't care if the priests want to cavort with other priests on their own time in their own place. Humans have needs. I really do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own space on their own time.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> What if none of them had to take a vow of celibacy?



Asceticism might have practical applications for people who want to experience or examine certain kinds of spiritual states of being.  There might be some "baby in the bathwater", as it were.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Go for it.
> They should do away with the vow of celibacy. I don't care if the priests want to cavort with other priests on their own time in their own place. Humans have needs. I really do not care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own space on their own time.



How do you respond to the impending argument that indulging certain desires, of which there are innumerable permutations, is somehow subversive to order and civility?  The phrase often used is "it will destroy the fabric of society".


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> How do you respond to the impending argument that indulging certain desires, of which there are innumerable permutations, is somehow subversive to order and civility?  The phrase often used is "destroy the fabric of society".


I wish I could say it on here, the way I'd phrase it in person.
People have been having sexy-time since day one and society thrives.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> How do you respond to the impending argument that indulging certain desires, of which there are innumerable permutations, is somehow subversive to order and civility?  The phrase often used is "destroy the fabric of society".


There are innumerable permutations because the fabric of society came up with them.
"destroying the fabric of society' seems to assume those permutations "came from somewhere else" and are invading the fabric of society like a cancer cell.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I wish I could say it on here, the way I'd phrase it in person.
> People have been having sexy-time since day one and society thrives.



PM me.

That's true.  And I imagine that at some not to distant point in our past we did all kinds of things to all kinds of things and no one batted a Neolithic eye.  But the idea of a robot is new.  I'm guessing we invented moral codes when we started living all jammed up together.



WaltL1 said:


> There are innumerable permutations because the fabric of society came up with them.
> "destroying the fabric of society' seems to assume those permutations "came from somewhere else" and are invading the fabric of society like a cancer cell.



I'll play Jesus' advocate.  We have a dark past, but we're trying to get better with Jesus' help and the help of the revelation given to us through His Holy Word the Bible.  All our yucky desires are because of the Fall of Man in The Garden of Eden.  One man.  One woman.  One orifice.  Anything else is Satan's spawn. Each man has his own individual curse to bear.  Each man has desires that lie outside of what is sanctified.  It is incumbent upon each man to recognize his sinful desires, ask for forgiveness for having them, pray for help to not have them anymore, and  with repentance, to stop acting upon them.  We will fail but we will be forgiven.

In summary:

1. Yucky permutations are Satan's legacy from the apple eating.
2. People with sinful desires should stop doing them even if they can't help thinking about them.

I'm sure you see the utility of most of the "regular" "decency codes", but there's somewhere between full burka and "pornographic" advertisements at the mall, isn't there?  Still, what a man does in his barn is his business.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> No Welder, as usual you do not understand it. History shows how morals evolve and change as humans evolve and change. History just a few hundred years ago in your own country that you say was founded on the principals and morals of your own God (which you STILL in a dozen posts refuse to provide us with a single absolute moral that comes from him) tells a different story than what you say. "Women" were married to much older men at 12 yrs old for just one example. Is that STILL ok today? It was acceptable to marry at 12 in a church under the eyes of your God with his blessing. Is that STILL acceptable? Tell us why.
> You cannot provide any absolute morals or outside moral source to back up your claims and we have shown that the history of the world and the history of your religion back up what we have said.





ambush80 said:


> Legal weed.


Hippy


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Hippy


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> PM me.
> 
> That's true.  And I imagine that at some not to distant point in our past we did all kinds of things to all kinds of things and no one batted a Neolithic eye.  But the idea of a robot is new.  I'm guessing we invented moral codes when we started living all jammed up together.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll play Jesus' advocate.  We have a dark past, but we're trying to get better with Jesus' help and the help of the revelation given to us through His Holy Word the Bible.  All our yucky desires are because of the Fall of Man in The Garden of Eden.  One man.  One woman.  One orifice.  Anything else is Satan's spawn. Each man has his own individual curse to bear.  Each man has desires that lie outside of what is sanctified.  It is incumbent upon each man to recognize his sinful desires, ask for forgiveness for having them, pray for help to not have them anymore, and  with repentance, to stop acting upon them.  We will fail but we will be forgiven.
> 
> In summary:
> 
> 1. Yucky permutations are Satan's legacy from the apple eating.
> 2. People with sinful desires should stop doing them even if they can't help thinking about them.
> 
> I'm sure you see the utility of most of the "regular" "decency codes", but there's somewhere between full burka and "pornographic" advertisements at the mall, isn't there?  Still, what a man does in his barn is his business.


Sure I can see the utility of it. And certainly it can provide positive effects. "I quit being a perv for God".
But is the elaborate story necessary?
Seems like "yeah we are humans and as such our brains can take us to twisted places so we all have a responsibility to control/suppress/keep in check/adhere to established norms...…… is a much quicker route without all the drama.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Sure I can see the utility of it. And certainly it can provide positive effects. "I quit being a perv for God".
> But is the elaborate story necessary?
> Seems like "yeah we are humans and as such our brains can take us to twisted places so we all have a responsibility to control/suppress/keep in check/adhere to established norms...…… is a much quicker route without all the drama.



Super like.
_
"The problem with this linkage between religion and morality is that it gives people bad reasons to help other human beings when good reasons are available."_

--Sam Harris


----------



## bullethead

So, according to Welder,Spotlite, Isreal and others... if God is the absolute moral giver and there are absolute morals....and God is All knowing and All powerful and All seeing and God is everywhere at all times and God steps in to change outcomes and if Pedophilia, Molestation and Abuse of children is Absolutey Wrong .... Why Didn't God step in when Priests were doing these things to Christian children if by God's rules it is Absolutey Wrong and God in fact takes action?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> So, according to Welder,Spotlite, Isreal and others... if God is the absolute moral giver and there are absolute morals....and God is All knowing and All powerful and All seeing and God is everywhere at all times and God steps in to change outcomes and if Pedophilia, Molestation and Abuse of children is Absolutey Wrong .... Why Didn't God step in when Priests were doing these things to Christian children if by God's rules it is Absolutey Wrong and God in fact takes action?




1. He didn't do it.  Evil men that aren't _REALLY _Christians did it of their own free will.

2. God is sovereign and He designed for those kids to be molested.

Neither faction knows why God did/allowed it but they trust that His reason was kind, just, loving, and good for them.

Notice how the two factions never hash out this seemingly incredible disparity in principle doctrine down here where they can cut loose without getting banded?  It seems to me if they want to follow the Great Commission that they would try to make us "See the Light".  Which of these lights should we see?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> 1. He didn't do it.  Evil men that aren't _REALLY _Christians did it of their own free will.
> 
> 2. God is sovereign and He designed for those kids to be molested.
> 
> Neither faction knows why God did/allowed it but they trust that His reason was kind, just, loving, and good for them.
> 
> Notice how the two factions never hash out this seemingly incredible disparity in principle doctrine down here where they can cut loose without getting banded?  It seems to me if they want to follow the Great Commission that they would try to make us "See the Light".  Which of these lights should we see?



1. God did/didnt do it(the molestation)isn't my gripe. They claim  god steps in to save the wretched, weak, unworthy, helpless, hopeless,wronged, etc etc etc ALL the time.
I am asking why he didn't help the children. I found out today that the one Priest got a teenage girl pregnant AND paid for her to have an abortion. 
2. One guy stepped up and at least admitted #2.

I mean hey...for the sake of the conversation I set aside my outright skepticism and I used their claims in the hopes that I could get an honest factual reply from any one one them. Gemcrew was honest.
I just cannot fathom why the only thing Absolute that the others bring to the table is Absolutely Nothing.
It furthers my thoughts that the god they portray does not exist in the capacity that they claim.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Fair enough...but why?
> 
> I am not defending anything here, nor even much against...but what is it about _that..._that is troubling?


Sorry Israel, I never answered this -
Basically its just how I feel about religion (any of them).
Its YOU/THEM that believe this specific god(s) exist so...…...
I completely support religious school, churches, worshipping places... whatever.
Do your thing. Teach your kids whatever you want. Vote based on your beliefs.
It has no place in the public school system or in laws that cater specifically to a religious belief.


----------



## bullethead

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/08/24...ho-impregnated-teen-and-arranged-her-abortion


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> 1. God did/didnt do it(the molestation)isn't my gripe. They claim  god steps in to save the wretched, weak, unworthy, helpless, hopeless,wronged, etc etc etc ALL the time.
> I am asking why he didn't help the children. I found out today that the one Priest got a teenage girl pregnant AND paid for her to have an abortion.



Their argument is that God sometimes gets involved and sometimes he doesn't. They don't know why. It's part of the Freewill thing.



bullethead said:


> 2. One guy stepped up and at least admitted #2.
> 
> I mean hey...for the sake of the conversation I set aside my outright skepticism and I used their claims in the hopes that I could get an honest factual reply from any one one them. Gemcrew was honest.
> I just cannot fathom why the only thing Absolute that the others bring to the table is Absolutely Nothing.
> It furthers my thoughts that the god they portray does not exist in the capacity that they claim.



There are a few more Predestination believers.  They're outnumbered.  They don't know why God wouldn't help those kids either, but it's swell.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Their argument is that God sometimes gets involved and sometimes he doesn't. They don't know why. It's part of the Freewill thing.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few more Predestination believers.  They're outnumbered.  They don't know why God wouldn't help those kids either, but it's swell.


Oh I get what you are saying Ambush, I am still waiting patiently until one of them can step up and back up their claims.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Oh I get what you are saying Ambush, I am still waiting patiently until one of them can step up and back up their claims.




I don't think you're listening to them.  They say just what I said.  They don't know why God doesn't help those kids, but they all know that he has an ultimate plan that's good, just, kind, loving, and righteous....and it involved letting those kids get molested.

You're trying to get them to say "Any God that would allow that to happen is monstrous".  They won't.  1,000 raped kids is nothing compared to drowning the Earth.  If I misunderstand their position I'm sure they would tell me so.


----------



## ambush80

Watch these guys talk about Christianity.  It's fun.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peterson loves the Bible.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I don't think you're listening to them.  They say just what I said.  They don't know why God doesn't help those kids, but they all know that he has an ultimate plan that's good, just, kind, loving, and righteous....and it involved letting those kids get molested.
> 
> You're trying to get them to say "Any God that would allow that to happen is monstrous".  They won't.  1,000 raped kids is nothing compared to drowning the Earth.  If I misunderstand their position I'm sure they would tell me so.


I just figured that any reasonable and rational person that is bold enough to make claims, especially on the magnitude that they make and especially when the bedrock of their claims is Absoluteness, that they could and would be ready willing and able to back them up. What could be easier than backing up something that is Absolutley True?
"I don't know" just doesn't cut it when those types of claims are made.

I know that it is not because they are unwilling. They literally can't. 
And I know that they know they can't. So instead of constantly making claims that they ABSOLUTELY can't back up,  I wish they would quit making those claims and stick to things that are within their capabilities.


----------



## ambush80

I think it's important to restate, loudly and repeatedly to anyone who will listen that the doctrine of Christianity requires one to believe that the molestation of children is just, loving, righteous, kind, and good if God allows it.  Those are moral claims.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I just figured that any reasonable and rational person that is bold enough to make claims, especially on the magnitude that they make and especially when the bedrock of their claims is Absoluteness, that they could and would be ready willing and able to back them up. What could be easier than backing up something that is Absolutley True?
> "I don't know" just doesn't cut it when those types of claims are made.
> 
> I know that it is not because they are unwilling. They literally can't.
> And I know that they know they can't. So instead of constantly making claims that they ABSOLUTELY can't back up,  I wish they would quit making those claims and stick to things that are within their capabilities.



1. Love God.

That's task number one.  Everything else is out of their pay grade.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The "problem of pain," as the well-known Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, once called it, is atheism's most potent weapon against the Christian faith. 
Actually it would be any religion's faith.

The answer within Christianity is since Adam's sin suffering is inevitable. 

I don't really have a good answer and can see why this is yall's biggest weapon. Not weapon maybe but perhaps importance.
 Wondering why any god or God would not intervene. Especially children who are presumed innocent.
Christians often wonder about these same things too. Especially the parents of children who suffer. 

I can see it and wonder myself. I admit I have no answer. Free will doesn't explain it. God could still intervene. Election doesn't explain it. Even if those children were not of the Elect, God could still intervene and punish them in He!! when they die a physical death.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> The "problem of pain," as the well-known Christian scholar, C.S. Lewis, once called it, is atheism's most potent weapon against the Christian faith.
> Actually it would be any religion's faith.
> 
> The answer within Christianity is since Adam's sin suffering is inevitable.
> 
> I don't really have a good answer and can see why this is yall's biggest weapon. Not weapon maybe but perhaps importance.
> Wondering why any god or God would not intervene. Especially children who are presumed innocent.
> Christians often wonder about these same things too. Especially the parents of children who suffer.
> 
> I can see it and wonder myself. I admit I have no answer. Free will doesn't explain it. God could still intervene. Election doesn't explain it. Even if those children were not of the Elect, God could still intervene and punish them in He!! when they die a physical death.


The Adam thing was the excuse until Jesus died for "our" sins.
His death/sacrifice wiped away everything that happened in the garden.
What was the point of Jesus's death?
It is long past due for a new excuse.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> 1. Love God.
> 
> That's task number one.  Everything else is out of their pay grade.


Robots


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> The Adam thing was the excuse until Jesus died for "our" sins.
> His death/sacrifice wiped away everything that happened in the garden.
> What was the point of Jesus's death?
> It is long past due for a new excuse.



I don't think that's the exact way Christ's death overcame what Adam did. I think that was just the beginning of the undoing. The final undoing will be when everything is "restored."


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think that's the exact way Christ's death overcame what Adam did. I think that was just the beginning of the undoing. The final undoing will be when everything is "restored."


Which sins did Jesus die for exactly?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Which sins did Jesus die for exactly?


He died for the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future. Every person, everyone. It was God's free gift to the world.


----------



## Spotlite

WaltL1 said:


> At one time the majority thought the world was flat and you would fall off the side/end if you sailed too far.
> The majority seem to agree God/Jesus is a tall white dude with long hair.
> Do you agree with that or do you believe that's just a representation we have come up with because nobody actually knows what God looks like?


I think that’s where most non believers don’t fully understand what it means to believe. We don’t believe just because someone or some words say it. We experience it for ourselves. No one can remove an experience from anyone, especially if they don’t have solid proof of their denial or reasons to dismiss it. 

We are not concerned with what God actually looks like, we may think or have an idea for discussion but at the end if the day, a spirit has no flesh and bones.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Robots



Quite a bit worse.  A robot can't willfully change it's program...yet.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Spotlite...YOU have never seen one before either!!!!
> You act as if anything that people can conjur in their minds exists because NOBODY has ever seen it!!!
> Do you hear how preposterous that is?
> 
> In your analogy you are taking an Alligator(something real, something we have physical evidence of, something people who do not live in Alligator country can and have seen) and equating it to a God(which nobody has ever seen, has no physical evidence of and has not ever been able to be proven real.)
> 
> I showed you how a more accurate analogy was by using a AlliHippoGator creature.
> You then admit fair enough therefore conceding that what I said made perfect sense...And in thr next breath try to state that AlliHippoGaters are real because 2 people say they saw one and one did not.
> 
> Spotlite, are AlliHippoGators real, do they exist?
> Would you go around life telling people they are in a pond?


Lol it’s just an analogy using something not seen (an alligator in a pond) . No need for an analysis  of the analogy. You’re way out in left field with this. 

The focus and the “fair enough” context there is you haven’t done your homework enough to be certain. I’ve done mine.

I can say with 100% certainty that God exist. Unless you’ve changed your position, you don’t have the assurance to be 100% confident that he doesn’t.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> He died for the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future. Every person, everyone. It was God's free gift to the world.


Right.
So we started with a clean slate. No more original sin as an excuse.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Lol it’s just an analogy using something not seen (an alligator in a pond) . No need for an analysis  of the analogy. You’re way out in left field with this.
> 
> The focus and the “fair enough” context there is you haven’t done your homework enough to be certain. I’ve done mine.
> 
> I can say with 100% certainty that God exist. Unless you’ve changed your position, you don’t have the assurance to be 100% confident that he doesn’t.


You(and others in here) constantly can and do "say" whatever you want. Saying it is ALL any of you have. Proving it is where you all come apart at the seams.

This post by you is just a continuation of saying whatever, claiming whatever,  asserting whatever with Zero Proof to back up anything as usual.


----------



## Israel

Think for a moment of your clone.


Then maybe read the sig line.

Efforts made to make others "like us" (in both senses of the word, both affections and in form) and what would appear _most amenable_ to our being, has perfect consequence.

You can argue if you care to. In fact I wouldn't expect less from things just like me. That cannot bear assertions. Nor being told "how things are".

Tell me...how would _you_ get you to get on board with anything...without you knowing the fault...in you... and find advantage to resist? 

Go ahead. "Lap the pack".
Seek to show yourself distinct. 


Just like everyone else.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Think for a moment of your clone.
> 
> 
> Then maybe read the sig line.
> 
> Efforts made to make others "like us" (in both senses of the word, both affections and in form) and what would appear _most amenable_ to our being, has perfect consequence.
> 
> You can argue if you care to. In fact I wouldn't expect less from things just like me. That cannot bear assertions. Nor being told "how things are".
> 
> Tell me...how would _you_ get you to get on board with anything...without you knowing the fault...in you... and find advantage to resist?
> 
> Go ahead. "Lap the pack".
> Seek to show yourself distinct.
> 
> 
> Just like everyone else.


Proof and Evidence work for me Izzy.
I use it all the time.
Try it, I may like it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So, according to Welder,Spotlite, Isreal and others... if God is the absolute moral giver and there are absolute morals....and God is All knowing and All powerful and All seeing and God is everywhere at all times and God steps in to change outcomes and if Pedophilia, Molestation and Abuse of children is Absolutey Wrong .... Why Didn't God step in when Priests were doing these things to Christian children if by God's rules it is Absolutey Wrong and God in fact takes action?



In a nutshell, this is your answer.

Eccl.3
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

"every thing beautiful in his time"
Not ours.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> In a nutshell, this is your answer.
> 
> Eccl.3
> 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
> 
> "every thing beautiful in his time"
> Not ours.



Strike 3,729.
My point has already been proven dozens upon dozens of times in here. There is no need for you to continue to give examples of what I've been saying all along.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> In a nutshell, this is your answer.
> 
> Eccl.3
> 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
> 
> "every thing beautiful in his time"
> Not ours.


Good example against your "absolutes" claim.
Now, we would lock up a person who was complicit in the crime by allowing it to go on until they judged it a beautiful time to stop.
Obviously no God given absolute there. Just jail time.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Strike 3,729.
> My point has already been proven dozens upon dozens of times in here. There is no need for you to continue to give examples of what I've been saying all along.



Your point is moot against God's reconciling(making all things beautiful).


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Good example against your "absolutes" claim.
> Now, we would lock up a person who was complicit in the crime by allowing it to go on until they judged it a beautiful time to stop.
> Obviously no God given absolute there. Just jail time.



So, you don't believe the jail time is part of God's beautification? That's narrow minded thinking.
(remember...reaping and sowing)


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> So, you don't believe the jail time is part of God's beautification? That's narrow minded thinking.
> (remember...reaping and sowing)


Was it the fact that I don't believe gods exist that tipped you off that I might not think jail time is God's beautification?
Jail time is a punishment that man came up with for going out of the lines that society has established for acceptable behavior. As society changes so does "jail time".
No absolute there either.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Your point is moot against God's reconciling(making all things beautiful).


Yeah yeah yeah, more claims for the No-Show God saying, thinking, doing...I know the schtick.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I think it's important to restate, loudly and repeatedly to anyone who will listen that the doctrine of Christianity requires one to believe that the molestation of children is just, loving, righteous, kind, and good if God allows it.  Those are moral claims.


Only as it pertains to God. Not as it pertains to man.

The difference between a decree and a precept is hanging your thoughts.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Only as it pertains to God. Not as it pertains to man.
> 
> The difference between a decree and a precept is hanging your thoughts.



Yes.  I understand that His ways are not for us.  We are allowed an eye for an eye or to turn the other cheek.  It's out of our pay grade to willfully destroy the Earth with fire or flood.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  I understand that His ways are not for us.  We are allowed an eye for an eye or to turn the other cheek.  It's out of our pay grade to willfully destroy the Earth with fire or flood.


A good place to start.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> A good place to start.



We are in perfect agreement on our interpretation of the Bible in regards to this issue.  What I don't get is your complete certainty that what you believe is true.  Doesn't that put you on equal footing with God if you say that you can perfectly interpret what he says?  That's not a "gotcha" question.  I just want to see how you resolve what seems to me to be a discrepancy.  It would be a problem fro me if I decided to be a believer (you know what I mean).


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Doesn't that put you on equal footing with God if you say that you can perfectly interpret what he says?


What do you have in mind by "equal footing"?


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> There are innumerable permutations because the fabric of society came up with them.
> "destroying the fabric of society' seems to assume those permutations "came from somewhere else" and are invading the fabric of society like a cancer cell.



You do see then how this undercuts any argument against what some call_ theists_?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  I understand that His ways are not for us.  We are allowed an eye for an eye or to turn the other cheek.  It's out of our pay grade to willfully destroy the Earth with fire or flood.



And the nations were angry; and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints and them that fear Thy name, small and great, and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth.”

The will to, as versus ability to accomplish have never much been the issue.

The father who fails to recognize the look of spite from a 4 year old has manifestly abandoned his role and surrendered his authority as an _adult._

He will surely be judged according to his response to it...but never as severely as the penalty for abandoning his place of knowing _for the child._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> And the nations were angry; and Thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that Thou shouldest give reward unto Thy servants the prophets, and to the saints and them that fear Thy name, small and great, and shouldest destroy them that destroy the earth.”
> 
> The will to, as versus ability to accomplish have never much been the issue.
> 
> The father who fails to recognize the look of spite from a 4 year old has manifestly abandoned his role and surrendered his authority as an _adult._
> 
> He will surely be judged according to his response to it...but never as severely as the penalty for abandoning his place of knowing _for the child._


The father of the 4yr old does not stand idly by when Father Flannigan is diddling the child either. It takes a god to be that heartless and arrogant.


----------



## Israel

Oh, Father Flannigan knows he's been told what to expect.

That's why he thought to do it behind closed doors. Trying to hide himself. There's a justice for that.

And so associations are formed. Seeking to make _official_ what is done behind closed doors.


----------



## gemcgrew

Even Fodder Flannigan serves a purpose.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Oh, Father Flannigan knows he's been told what to expect.
> 
> That's why he thought to do it behind closed doors. Trying to hide himself. There's a justice for that.
> 
> And so associations are formed. Seeking to make _official_ what is done behind closed doors.


FF certainly knows what to expect and that is why he has absolutely no fear of penalty later. He hides from man because he knows his job is a farce.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Even Fodder Flannigan serves a purpose.


Well, that is how you have to accept it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The father of the 4yr old does not stand idly by when Father Flannigan is diddling the child either. It takes a god to be that heartless and arrogant.



I thought your assertion was that society determined right and wrong. Now you want to blame God instead. Make up our minds.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I thought your assertion was that society determined right and wrong. Now you want to blame God instead. Make up our minds.


Welder, please follow along.
Since the beginning of this entire thread, I stated that for the sake of this conversation that I was going to assume that what believers said is true and make my arguments from there.
If you are unable to process that and continue to cherry pick the morsels that you only want, then you should not participate. You do not make for good conversation because you are unable to comprehend what the conversation is actually about.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I thought your assertion was that society determined right and wrong. Now you want to blame God instead. Make up our minds.


You and every believer in your god that frequent this forum claim that the The God is All powerful, all knowing, sees everything,  hears everything,  AND most importantly  not only steps in to change outcomes but has done it for you and others in here.
I want to know why he didn't do it for those children (and for the millions of instances daily worldwide that your god is an absolute No-Show) that were involved in situations that were favorable to being closer to a god.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You and every believer in your god that frequent this forum claim that the The God is All powerful, all knowing, sees everything,  hears everything,  AND most importantly  not only steps in to change outcomes but has done it for you and others in here.
> I want to know why he didn't do it for those children (and for the millions of instances daily worldwide that your god is an absolute No-Show) that were involved in situations that were favorable to being closer to a god.



Obviously, it was not His will to stop it...yet.
Oh, and you left out an attribute from your list.... long-suffering.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Obviously, it was not His will to stop it...yet.


Yeah...Obvious


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yeah...Obvious



Why was that so hard for you?
What was the answer you were fishing for?


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> You and every believer in your god that frequent this forum claim that the The God is All powerful, all knowing, sees everything,  hears everything,  AND most importantly  not only steps in to change outcomes but has done it for you and others in here.
> I want to know why he didn't do it for those children (and for the millions of instances daily worldwide that your god is an absolute No-Show) that were involved in situations that were favorable to being closer to a god.


The Bible tells us that God causes evil for the purpose of his glory. It Pleased God to crush his Son and cause him to suffer.

I don't place the welfare of children above my reverence of God.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Why was that so hard for you?
> What was the answer you were fishing for?


Getting typical answers that answer nothing is not hard for me.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> The Bible tells us that God causes evil for the purpose of his glory. It Pleased God to crush his Son and cause him to suffer.
> 
> I don't place the welfare of children above my reverence of God.


Another example of god being more like the individual believer rather than them being like their god.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Another example of god being more like the individual believer rather than them being like their god.


All examples serve God's purpose.

Even the bad ones.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Another example of god being more like the individual believer rather than them being like their god.



Isaiah 46:9
"Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> FF certainly knows what to expect and that is why he has absolutely no fear of penalty later. He hides from man because he knows his job is a farce.



I don't know if FF is an actual or a convenience. 

Either way, if actual conspirator or just used as type, it would be wrong of me to imply he is any farther from finding mercy than I am or have been. What _he was able to conceive_ to his satisfaction or pleasure overtook him, to himself a _good thing, _and there showed its advantage. It has now come out as judge-able.

Jesus said of those on whom the tower at Siloam fell that if some imagined they were sinners above _all the rest, _they would meet a similar end unless they repent.

(It's easy to judge others, and maybe the expression that describes such ease as "falling off a log" is more appropriate here than anywhere. Jesus also spoke of beams [logs] and motes.)

This _virtue signaling _of being in high dudgeon over the behavior of others are our own little towers we erect to shine like beacons seeking to separate ourselves, in whatever manner we find such distinction convenient to us. The parading of a _finer sense_ of right and wrong, a more _illuminated palate, _a better informed _conscience or _educated sensibility is nothing new. I think all men are well practiced in it. We seek a paling of our own faults, weaknesses, and frailties by the exposing of those so easily seen in others.

Their manifest lack of "rightness" (if we can keep the kettle stirred) seems to take a bit of sting out of our own and acts as further cover for our own failings. So gossip flourishes.

I did say, in joining in that FF (be he real or imagined) was told what to expect from seeking to hide himself. Thinking there is a darkness behind doors sufficient to keep out all light of knowing. Where even darkness might frustrate the Lord's eye of light.
But of course, this is not so, everything done in secret will be made known, everything believed to be done under cover of darkness...exposed.

There is "nothing hidden"...despite attempt.

It can serve to sober a man.

I ain't drunk, I just been drinkin' 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Isaiah 46:9
> "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,


Foghorn Leghorn has quotes too


----------



## WaltL1

> welderguy said:
> Isaiah 46:9
> "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,





bullethead said:


> Foghorn Leghorn has quotes too


All bow to Foghorn the Leghorn..


----------



## welderguy

Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Proverbs 26:4-5
> 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
> 
> 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


1) And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe, they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know. 

(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #13)


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> All bow to Foghorn the Leghorn..


It is as if FogHorn was talking to Welder directly. Almost like Mel Blanc knew then, that we would use his work now for a greater purpose. The Omniscient Mel Blanc.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> All examples serve God's purpose.
> 
> Even the bad ones.


Robots following a script. It is my purpose to question you.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Robots following a script.


Yes. God is over the robots as well.


bullethead said:


> It is my purpose to question you.


Like I said, even bad examples serve God's purpose.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. God is over the robots as well.
> 
> Like I said, even bad examples serve God's purpose.


Sure he is over the robots as well. Programmed to do as the programmer wishes. We are all going through the preset motions.
How can it be bad if your god directed it? Is his will not good? It seems your flawed thinking is supposed to be per another of his bad directives.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> How can it be bad if your god directed it?


Silly. He decreed it to be bad.


bullethead said:


> Is his will not good?


His will is perfect. That is how you know that it is good for God to decree bad things to happen.


bullethead said:


> It seems your flawed thinking is supposed to be per another of his bad directives.


You can't show my thinking as flawed and the Bible tells you why.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Silly. He decreed it to be bad.


Show me where and when he decreed it please.



gemcgrew said:


> His will is perfect. That is how you know that it is good for God to decree bad things to happen.


If his will was perfect I would agree with you that I and everyone on the planet would know. But in fact that is not the case by an overwhelming majority.



gemcgrew said:


> You can't show my thinking as flawed and the Bible tells you why.


I, like many, do not believe what is contained in the bible is true or has any authority anywhere. The courts in this very country do not take what is contained in the bible as truthful or law. Using the Bible, your thinking may not be flawed, but that can be said of any and every religious book and follower that uses it. But in the real world where facts matter,  your thinking is as flawed as your claims.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Show me where and when he decreed it please.


"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:" Isaiah 14:24


bullethead said:


> If his will was perfect I would agree with you that I and everyone on the planet would know. But in fact that is not the case by an overwhelming majority.


You continue to affirm that what the Bible says is true. That God by His wisdom... saw to it that man, by his wisdom... would not know Him.


bullethead said:


> I, like many, do not believe what is contained in the bible is true or has any authority anywhere. The courts in this very country do not take what is contained in the bible as truthful or law. Using the Bible, your thinking may not be flawed, but that can be said of any and every religious book and follower that uses it. But in the real world where facts matter,  your thinking is as flawed as your claims.


In your world, facts are determined by the "courts in this very country"? You mean humans? You look to humans for truth, for facts?

Cool


----------



## welderguy

Now, cue the lame insults and cartoons. ?


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> "The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:" Isaiah 14:24


Bible, product of man. Your God cannot even write. 



gemcgrew said:


> You continue to affirm that what the Bible says is true. That God by His wisdom... saw to it that man, by his wisdom... would not know Him.


Kind of convenient that a god who is supposedly everywhere and is involved in humans lives is unknowable.  People claim that about invisible friends a lot

In your world, facts are determined by the "courts in this very country"? You mean humans? You look to humans for truth, for facts?[/quote]
I'll bet my gun collection that you live your daily life following the rules set by man, no different than me. You will stop at Stop signs, you will pay your taxes, you will follow the laws. And you do, because "God said I can do, see its right here in this book, doesn't  mean squat.



> Cool


 not only Cool, but good for your health


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Silly. He decreed it to be bad.
> 
> His will is perfect. That is how you know that it is good for God to decree bad things to happen.
> 
> You can't show my thinking as flawed and the Bible tells you why.


Your thinking is dependent on the Bible and that is its flaw.
The circle goes round and round.
If your thinking is determined by the Bible and you are using the Bible to determine the accuracy of your thinking.....
Put the Bible down and that whole line of thinking gets real flawed real quick.
Which I assume doesn't really matter to you.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Your thinking is dependent on the Bible and that is its flaw.
> The circle goes round and round.
> If your thinking is determined by the Bible and you are using the Bible to determine the accuracy of your thinking.....
> Put the Bible down and that whole line of thinking gets real flawed real quick.
> Which I assume doesn't really matter to you.



As I think has been mentioned numerous times, what's called the Bible is a collection of writings (I've never seen anyone even question this to dispute) recorded over centuries by disparate authors. It has never been imputed to a single scribe.

As to any promotion (or even exaltation to particular practice) of religion, one need only read the prophets for profound disagreement. And to such extents found that very weighty judgments are pronounced against those whose sole hope lie in outward practice in ensuring identity, both to so called "jew" of Israel and pagans alike.

So deeply unsettling that fundamental (and facile) understandings are addressed, rebuked, and even contravened to the end of exposing a fundamental _disobedience _to precepts _only seemingly_ embraced. One writes that the _desirable fast_ is not at all _as men might_ think. Another seemingly _breaks the law _of allowable food to him, and is held blameless. One (that same _eater_) goes well beyond the appearance of the _law's practice (_that is previously seen as bond of common identity_) to state..._

_Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire_; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering_ hast thou not required._

Everywhere, if one cared to look, is a pointing out, and reference to a something deeper than previously understood requirement. And, even made known (either despite, or because of, depending upon how one sees) what was "once given" for practice. There is a leading through what was once given, and taken _on face, to a knowledge beyond _mere outer performance.

Of course, Jesus addresses this almost continually, and succinctly in "you have heard it said".

It's far more than an historical telling of a people "warts and all", though it most certainly cannot be denied that. Faults, foibles, desperate weaknesses and treacheries to one another, are all plainly on display. In some ways it speaks, if able to be seen, as a sure indictment of people who have placed their hopes in somehow being superior by a superiority secured (only by and) to themselves, and whose shame in that is exposed over and over again. With, as far as I have ever been able to see, no photo-shopping over blemishes.

So, faith is found in a harlot. Faith is found in a man pursuing one. Faith is found in a man seeking God...faith is found in a man running from Him and his pointed disobedience in "having heard from Him."

Lessons are seen, and learned, and taught. An uncovering through many, many (what would be to man most unfortunate turns) to a something immutable found. And, in that immutability found, though its justice be inescapable and sure, unrelenting and vividly on display...the man who accepts his lot as mere creature powerless against it...may discover something else at work.

In thinking about it I suppose this begs this question.

And if only to you Walt, or any other, such as even myself. It's germane ceratinly in this thread (though I see a far broader application)

What is it that shows the plain wrongness in dissonance between what a man may do outwardly, (or say of himself), yet when the rubber is found hitting the road to a disclosure of his true nature (despite outer show, words and convenient practice) demonstrates all was only previously done in total self service...and that of the (adjudged, at least as I see) most abysmal sort?

Wouldn't it be rather moot for any to seek a condemnation of another for any circular thought or reasoning, unless such a man has not learned in himself...all _his own being, no less_, starts and ends with himself? Who, in all, is not _quite circular_ here and to be found out no less so?

Such a man (to me) would have to be entirely ignorant of the necessity _of being_ as requirement for him to judge ...being...of any sort.

Is there a safe vantage from which a man might judge hypocrisy?
Perhaps. But maybe that is only found in judgment _of his own._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> As I think has been mentioned numerous times, what's called the Bible is a collection of writings (I've never seen anyone even question this to dispute) recorded over centuries by disparate authors. It has never been imputed to a single scribe.
> 
> As to any promotion (or even exaltation to particular practice) of religion, one need only read the prophets for profound disagreement. And to such extents found that very weighty judgments are pronounced against those whose sole hope lie in outward practice in ensuring identity, both to so called "jew" of Israel and pagans alike.
> 
> So deeply unsettling that fundamental (and facile) understandings are addressed, rebuked, and even contravened to the end of exposing a fundamental _disobedience _to precepts _only seemingly_ embraced. One writes that the _desirable fast_ is not at all _as men might_ think. Another seemingly _breaks the law _of allowable food to him, and is held blameless. One (that same _eater_) goes well beyond the appearance of the _law's practice (_that is previously seen as bond of common identity_) to state..._
> 
> _Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire_; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering_ hast thou not required._
> 
> Everywhere, if one cared to look, is a pointing out, and reference to a something deeper than previously understood requirement. And, even made known (either despite, or because of, depending upon how one sees) what was "once given" for practice. There is a leading through what was once given, and taken _on face, to a knowledge beyond _mere outer performance.
> 
> Of course, Jesus addresses this almost continually, and succinctly in "you have heard it said".
> 
> It's far more than an historical telling of a people "warts and all", though it most certainly cannot be denied that. Faults, foibles, desperate weaknesses and treacheries to one another, are all plainly on display. In some ways it speaks, if able to be seen, as a sure indictment of people who have placed their hopes in somehow being superior by a superiority secured (only by and) to themselves, and whose shame in that is exposed over and over again. With, as far as I have ever been able to see, no photo-shopping over blemishes.
> 
> So, faith is found in a harlot. Faith is found in a man pursuing one. Faith is found in a man seeking God...faith is found in a man running from Him and his pointed disobedience in "having heard from Him."
> 
> Lessons are seen, and learned, and taught. An uncovering through many, many (what would be to man most unfortunate turns) to a something immutable found. And, in that immutability found, though its justice be inescapable and sure, unrelenting and vividly on display...the man who accepts his lot as mere creature powerless against it...may discover something else at work.
> 
> In thinking about it I suppose this begs this question.
> 
> And if only to you Walt, or any other, such as even myself. It's germane ceratinly in this thread (though I see a far broader application)
> 
> What is it that shows the plain wrongness in dissonance between what a man may do outwardly, (or say of himself), yet when the rubber is found hitting the road to a disclosure of his true nature (despite outer show, words and convenient practice) demonstrates all was only previously done in total self service...and that of the (adjudged, at least as I see) most abysmal sort?
> 
> Wouldn't it be rather moot for any to seek a condemnation of another for any circular thought or reasoning, unless such a man has not learned in himself...all _his own being, no less_, starts and ends with himself? Who, in all, is not _quite circular_ here and to be found out no less so?
> 
> Such a man (to me) would have to be entirely ignorant of the necessity _of being_ as requirement for him to judge ...being...of any sort.
> 
> Is there a safe vantage from which a man might judge hypocrisy?
> Perhaps. But maybe that is only found in judgment _of his own._


Condense that please.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You(and others in here) constantly can and do "say" whatever you want. Saying it is ALL any of you have. Proving it is where you all come apart at the seams.
> 
> This post by you is just a continuation of saying whatever, claiming whatever,  asserting whatever with Zero Proof to back up anything as usual.


Where it comes apart is when non believers think we must prove something to them. The reality is while we do care about your soul, we realize that it’s your choice to make and not our responsibility to prove anything to you.

The argument from ignorance is a two way street as well. While non believers consistently claim that they dont know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> Where it comes apart is when non believers think we must prove something to them. The reality is while we do care about your soul, we realize that it’s your choice to make and not our responsibility to prove anything to you.
> 
> The argument from ignorance is a two way street as well.




That word ignorance is important.  Let's see how long we can hover on that for a while.  I think we should start with a definition that everybody can agree to.   How's this one from Webster?

*Definition of ignorance*
_ 
*: *the state or fact of being ignorant *: *lack of knowledge, education, or awareness_

I Imagine our next hurdle will be to define knowledge, education, and awareness.  I'll defer to Webster again.


*Definition of knowledge*
_ 

            1 a (1)  *: *the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association 

            (2)   *: *acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique      

            b (1)  *: *the fact or condition of being aware of something      

            (2)  *: *the range of one's information or understanding                              
_

_ 

answered to the best of my knowledge
 _
_c   *: *the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning *: *cognition 

            d   *: *the fact or condition of having information or of being learned                              
_

_ 

a person of unusual knowledge
 _
_2 a    *: *the sum of what is known *: *the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind      

            b   archaic  *: *a branch of learning     _


*Definition of education*
_ 

            1 a   *: *the action or process of educating or of being educated;                            also *: *a stage of such a process                                  

            b   *: *the knowledge and development resulting from process of education                              _

_a person of little education_
_ 2  *: *the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools    _ 

*Definition of awareness*
_ 
*: *the quality or state of being aware *: *knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists     _

There.  Now that that's out of the way, can we agree to use those definitions going forward?                         



_https://www.merriam-webster.com/_


----------



## ambush80

To say that I'm ignorant of what it's like to have God revealed to me is absolutely correct.  I have never experienced compelling enough evidence to say that I have experienced revelation.  I thought I did.  In retrospect I was incorrect. People who think God revealed Himself to them might be mistaken like I was.  That deals with knowledge and how we get it.  Again:

_1 a (1)  *: *the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association 

            (2)   *: *acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique      

            b (1)  *: *the fact or condition of being aware of something      

            (2)  *: *the range of one's information or understanding      _

Can one understand, that is, have knowledge of something without having firsthand experience of something, like zero gravity? If they did, then they wouldn't be ignorant of it anymore or at least not completely ignorant of it.  If someone were to show you video of people in zero gravity or if they told you it was like being neutrally buoyant in water you wouldn't say they were "ignorant" about zero gravity even if they had never experienced it before, would you? And when people like Bullethead say they used to believe, how can you say that they were ignorant of it?     

Ever seen a "snake" while hunting and jumped back and it turned out to be a stick?


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> That word ignorance is important.  Let's see how long we can hover on that for a while.  I think we should start with a definition that everybody can agree to.   How's this one from Webster?
> 
> *Definition of ignorance*
> _
> *: *the state or fact of being ignorant *: *lack of knowledge, education, or awareness_
> 
> I Imagine our next hurdle will be to define knowledge, education, and awareness.  I'll defer to Webster again.
> 
> 
> *Definition of knowledge*
> _
> 
> 1 a (1)  *: *the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
> 
> (2)   *: *acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
> 
> b (1)  *: *the fact or condition of being aware of something
> 
> (2)  *: *the range of one's information or understanding                              _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> answered to the best of my knowledge
> _
> _c   *: *the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning *: *cognition
> 
> d   *: *the fact or condition of having information or of being learned                              _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> a person of unusual knowledge
> _
> _2 a    *: *the sum of what is known *: *the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
> 
> b   archaic  *: *a branch of learning     _
> 
> 
> *Definition of education*
> _
> 
> 1 a   *: *the action or process of educating or of being educated;                            also *: *a stage of such a process
> 
> b   *: *the knowledge and development resulting from process of education                              _
> 
> _a person of little education_
> _ 2  *: *the field of study that deals mainly with methods of teaching and learning in schools    _
> 
> *Definition of awareness*
> _
> *: *the quality or state of being aware *: *knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists     _
> 
> There.  Now that that's out of the way, can we agree to use those definitions going forward?
> 
> 
> 
> _https://www.merriam-webster.com/_


You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance



This wasn't part of your post when I replied to you:

_"While non believers consistently claim that they don't know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that." _

*Argument from ignorance*_ (from Latin: *argumentum ad ignorantiam*), also known as *appeal to ignorance* (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that __a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. _

Also:

*Appeal to ignorance*_: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.__[3]_​
But let's stay on this one for a minute:

"a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Of course your familiar by now with "Russell's Teapot" argument.  How is what you assert any different?  I can't really tell what you're accusing me of missing.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You’re not even in the same ball park with the context. Dwell on
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.

Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
> We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.
> 
> Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?


Hypocrite nor a liar. How would I be either? You’re stretching a for a straw to keep from drowning. I’m not obligated to believe in any of them or subject to the same rules you live by with having to rule everything out. That’s your cup of tea. I can believe in whatever and whichever I chose based on nothing but my own rules.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> This wasn't part of your post when I replied to you:
> 
> _"While non believers consistently claim that they don't know what it is, they sure stand firm claiming they know what it isn’t.......but they’re not even 100% certain of that." _
> 
> *Argument from ignorance*_ (from Latin: *argumentum ad ignorantiam*), also known as *appeal to ignorance* (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that __a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. _
> 
> Also:
> 
> *Appeal to ignorance*_: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.__[3]_​
> But let's stay on this one for a minute:
> 
> "a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."
> 
> Of course your familiar by now with "Russell's Teapot" argument.  How is what you assert any different?  I can't really tell what you're accusing me of missing.


I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Then, like you based on your Argument, I also believe in at least 10,000 Gods.
> We are equally confused as to which is the bestest based off of your criteria.
> 
> Are you a Hypocrite or a Liar?


And while I’m at it, I drive a Chevy but I have not ruled out the rest as a comparison. It’s just the one I like . Hypocrite or liar?


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.



If that's the impression that you get then I'll shoulder at least half the blame.   I presented the Peterson/Harris discussions and express my admiration of how both men examine their differences with grace, courtesy, and humility as a model of what can be achieved through mutual respect.  I try to emulate what I see in them.  Can you honestly say that I've represented myself in a way that seems snarky or disrespectful?  If so, I'll take it as constructive criticism and try to do better.  

I'm interested in how people think.  Seeing how someone I disagree with gives me insight into how I came to my own conclusions.  Iron sharpens iron (stone actually sharpens iron better, in my opinion but we should be able to discuss that like gentlemen).


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> I think somehow that non believers must convince believers that we have to prove something? We are not concerned over it if you don’t believe, we don’t need your approval for reassurance. We are fine with the outcome. You’re decisions do not make any sense to us, why would you need ours to make sense to you? If it was a matter of discussion and honest debate to understand one another then it would be different, but that is not your goal.



Well, you've got The Great Commission to contend with.  I only want to convince people to base their decisions that affect society on reason and logic.  If God makes them be good I'll take that as a net plus, though I'd prefer they be good for good reasons rather than bad ones cause those bad ones can lead to REALLY bad things.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Well, you've got The Great Commission to contend with.


You’ve been told. My job is complete.,


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> Can you honestly say that I've represented myself in a way that seems snarky or disrespectful?
> 
> I'm interested in how people think.  Seeing how someone I disagree with gives me insight into how I came to my own conclusions.  Iron sharpens iron (stone actually sharpens iron better, in my opinion but we should be able to discuss that like gentlemen).


Not saying you personally but a quick search and you can easily find the snarky remarks. But I know on at least one occasion that you made the statement to me that you “not only have a problem with Christianity, but YOU”

If it’s a problem, then there’s some hatred, disgust, despise, etc as well which ultimately leads to the snarky comments.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> I only want to convince people to base their decisions that affect society on reason and logic


 The problem is the minority of society is telling the majority of society they’re wrong and the minority does not have any solid ground for their “logic” and “reason”. Fix that first.


----------



## ambush80

Spotlite said:


> The problem is the minority of society is telling the majority of society they’re wrong and the minority does not have any solid ground for their “logic” and “reason”. Fix that first.



By "solid ground" do you mean an a priory cause?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And while I’m at it, I drive a Chevy but I have not ruled out the rest as a comparison. It’s just the one I like . Hypocrite or liar?


Last I checked Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, GMC,  etc are all available for test drives. You can go to thier dealerships and they are on the lots.

How many test drives have you taken in a 2018 Flying Spaghetti Monster Edition 2500 with a Flux Capacitor from Yaweh Motor Corporation?

In your world, you would have us all believe that truck is available for sale merely because nobody can prove it isn't. 

And you argue that is a legitimate excuse.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Hypocrite nor a liar. How would I be either? You’re stretching a for a straw to keep from drowning. I’m not obligated to believe in any of them or subject to the same rules you live by with having to rule everything out. That’s your cup of tea. I can believe in whatever and whichever I chose based on nothing but my own rules.


You must acknowledge that they all exist merely because you cannot prove they do not exist. 
Those are the rules of the argument you make for your god, so if it is good for one god it is good for all gods.
If you deny that, then you are a Hypocrite.
If you you say it isn't applicable then you are a liar.


----------



## Israel

From either "side", at least as pertaining to _what may appear_ as sides in these discussions, can come the observation/contention/accusation aimed at _the other, _in the most general of senses..."But man should not be this way"

Whether it come from side "A" or side "B" matters not as in,

"Man _should not be_ superstitious and given to certain practice untenable by reason..."(as reason is adjudged by the speaker)

or (in some context spoken)

"Man _should not be_ unbelieving but have faith..."
(Again, as faith is adjudged by the speaker)

What appears to be at odds (though may not be _at all_) is a seeking of approach to find man in his true (and truest) estate, consistent _in being_ what it means "to be man".

In one sense it becomes apparent (if there is any merit to my observations) that each "side" _holds in view _some archetype of both "normal man" and "defective man", finding basis for the accusation by the standing upon one...to accuse, or contradict the other.
If this is so, each is seeking to define what _man is_.

"Man is reasonable and should be so" (By some assumption contained this excludes "faith")
or
"Man should have faith" (Likewise by assumption this either reduces, or is to some exclusion of reason as the _paramount constituent_)

But the overarching and fundamental _agreement is seen _(that essentially causes line of division to seeming "sides" to evaporate) is this: (and not without consequence)

The _agreement in toto_ is that man may exist _in being _as he_ ought not._

Each _seeming side_ (that _truly_ make of themselves one true side) in total agreement that man has the ability...to be...in being..._falling short_ of what man_ is_ "to be".


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You must acknowledge that they all exist merely because you cannot prove they do not exist.


That’s the fallacy of insecurity. 

I’m not even concerned if the rest exist or not.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Last I checked Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, GMC,  etc are all available for test drives. You can go to thier dealerships and they are on the lots.
> 
> How many test drives have you taken in a 2018 Flying Spaghetti Monster Edition 2500 with a Flux Capacitor from Yaweh Motor Corporation?
> 
> In your world, you would have us all believe that truck is available for sale merely because nobody can prove it isn't.
> 
> And you argue that is a legitimate excuse.


No. Just saying I don’t need a process.


----------



## Spotlite

ambush80 said:


> By "solid ground" do you mean an a priory cause?


Lack of evidence.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> That’s the fallacy of insecurity.
> 
> I’m not even concerned if the rest exist or not.


I don't care what your concern is, we are talking about your argument. They all exist because you cannot prove that they don't. Period. You just refuse to acknowledge the others.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No. Just saying I don’t need a process.


But you use things that are proven to exist as your example of things that at best are More Likely Than Not, Do not Exist. Horrible Analogies. 

Does Yaweh Motors exist? Do they sell a Flying Spaghetti Monster 2500 with Flux Capacitor power?
By your claims, it does exist because nobody can prove it does not.
And, I think you even realize how stupid it is, but cannot bear to admit it out in the open.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I don't care what your concern is, we are talking about your argument. They all exist because you cannot prove that they don't. Period. You just refuse to acknowledge the others.


I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> But you use things that are proven to exist as your example of things that at best are More Likely Than Not, Do not Exist. Horrible Analogies.
> 
> Does Yaweh Motors exist? Do they sell a Flying Spaghetti Monster 2500 with Flux Capacitor power?
> By your claims, it does exist because nobody can prove it does not.
> And, I think you even realize how stupid it is, but cannot bear to admit it out in the open.


My analogies are simple for a reason, the point is still the same, I don’t need a process to decide or rule out for security. I made a decision based on my experiences with something, not based on experiences with something else. Something else does not even get my time waisted on it.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Lack of evidence.


No court in the Land holds people liable because of a lack of evidence.

"Therefore your Honor, he is guilty because he wasn't there and he didn't do it...."


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.


I argue from Evidence.
Big Difference


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.



Let's cut to the chase here.
Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
Yes or No, it really is that simple.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I argue from Evidence.
> Big Difference


Then present it.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Let's cut to the chase here.
> Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
> Yes or No, it really is that simple.


You and I have went down the same road several tines. My God said have no other gods before him. Why would I say no other gods exist?


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Let's cut to the chase here.
> Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
> Yes or No, it really is that simple.


Now using your process and evidence where you took it one God further, prove Gid does not exist with 100% certainty. And we all know that a lack of someone else’s evidence is not sufficient.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> My analogies are simple for a reason, the point is still the same, I don’t need a process to decide or rule out for security. I made a decision based on my experiences with something, not based on experiences with something else. Something else does not even get my time wasted on it



You waste more time avoiding Something Else because you have painted yourself into a corner using the Argument from Ignorance.

The argument that YOU use does not specify having experiences with.
It simply states that If you cannot prove something does not exist, it therefore must exist. You immediately include yourself as a believer in everything unprovable.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> You and I have went down the same road several tines. My God said have no other gods before him. Why would I say no other gods exist?


Then answer Yes or No.
Do other Gods exist?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Now using your process and evidence where you took it one God further, prove Gid does not exist with 100% certainty. And we all know that a lack of someone else’s evidence is not sufficient.


Your Honor, my client was run over by the defendant 3 months ago and here is my proof:
1. The defendant does not own a car.
2. The defendant is a quad paraplegic and has been bed ridden since birth.
3. The defendant has been dead for 30 years.
Yes Spotlite, lack of evidence IS NOT sufficient.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> You waste more time avoiding Something Else because you have painted yourself into a corner using the Argument from Ignorance.
> 
> The argument that YOU use does not specify having experiences with.
> It simply states that If you cannot prove something does not exist, it therefore must exist. You immediately include yourself as a believer in everything unprovable.


No painting here pal. I’ve had this experience a lot longer than you’ve denied it.

You’re completely mistaken about me. Just because you can’t disprove it is not an automatic proof for me. I believe in this because it works, not because you can’t knock it down or explain it away. That’s the difference.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Your Honor, my client was run over by the defendant 3 months ago and here is my proof:
> 1. The defendant does not own a car.
> 2. The defendant is a quad paraplegic and has been bed ridden since birth.
> 3. The defendant has been dead for 30 years.
> Yes Spotlite, lack of evidence IS NOT sufficient.


Lol ok ?


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> No painting here pal. I’ve had this experience a lot longer than you’ve denied it.
> 
> You’re completely mistaken about me. Just because it can’t disprove it is not an automatic proof for me. I believe in this because it works, not because you can’t knock it down or explain it away. That’s the difference.



I don't deny your experience,  I deny your source. It could, according to the Argument from Ignorance, have been from one of the other 9,999 gods just messing with you..lets not count the debbil and another 9,999 "bad" gods.

Who needs proof when everything is true???


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I don't deny your experience,  I deny your source. It could, according to the Argument from Ignorance, have been from one of the other 9,999 gods just messing with you..lets not count the debbil and another 9,999 "bad" gods.
> 
> Who needs proof when everything is true???


Look I get what you’re saying. I’m sure it doesn’t make sense and therefore I’m ok if you deny my source. Your denial is moot for me in order to practice or to keep believing. 

If one of the others are messing with me, they’re doing it pretty consistently.

All I’m saying to you is that you can’t argue that my lack of evidence is your proof and then tell me that my proof can’t rely on your lack of evidence......I believe that’s where it gets hypocritical. 

You should understand clearly, my proof is not even dependent on you.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Look I get what you’re saying. I’m sure it doesn’t make sense and therefore I’m ok if you deny my source. Your denial is moot for me in order to practice or to keep believing.
> 
> If one of the others are messing with me, they’re doing it pretty consistently.
> 
> All I’m saying to you is that you can’t argue that my lack of evidence is your proof and then tell me that my proof can’t rely on your lack of evidence......I believe that’s where it gets hypocritical.
> 
> You should understand clearly, my proof is not even dependent on you.


That is fitting because proof depends on your evidence.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> All I’m saying to you is that you can’t argue that my lack of evidence is your proof and then tell me that my proof can’t rely on your lack of evidence......I believe that’s where it gets hypocritical.


I am in no way suggesting that you need me in any of this. But when you tell me that something IS, I expect you to be able to prove it. Once you make that claim it is not up to me to do anything but sit back and verify.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Then answer Yes or No.
> Do other Gods exist?


 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> I am in no way suggesting that you need me in any of this. But when you tell me that something IS, I expect you to be able to prove it. Once you make that claim it is not up to me to do anything but sit back and verify.


And I expect the same in return. If you’re positive it isn’t.....I expect more than the quarter landing on heads 49 out of 50 times.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
> 
> But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.


Yeah, stand by himheone who idly be standing by when it counts...we be know.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> And I expect the same in return. If you’re positive it isn’t.....I expect more than the quarter landing on heads 49 out of 50 times.


No evidence for equals evidence against. It really is that simple.

I'm accepting investors for the Yaweh Motors Flying Spaghetti Monster edition 2500 with Flux Capacitor.
$1000/share. 10 share minimum. 
Unless you are skeptical and can prove YM does not exist...


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> If one of the others are messing with me, they’re doing it pretty consistently.


They ARE gods with capabilities beyond our own and interact with people according to multiple sources in here..


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> No evidence for equals evidence against. It really is that simple.
> 
> I'm accepting investors for the Yaweh Motors Flying Spaghetti Monster edition 2500 with Flux Capacitor.
> $1000/share. 10 share minimum.
> Unless you are skeptical and can prove YM does not exist...


I will just take your word for it until I want one 

Until then, I am neither skeptical nor interested.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> They ARE gods with capabilities beyond our own and interact with people according to multiple sources in here..


I’m sure a cow has capabilities to walk through fences way beyond my own.


----------



## Spotlite

bullethead said:


> Yeah, stand by himheone who idly be standing by when it counts...we be know.


Or......the one who has stood by us.


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I’m sure a cow has capabilities to walk through fences way beyond my own.


Yep


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> Or......the one who has stood by us.


Hopefully the one you think


----------



## bullethead

Spotlite said:


> I will just take your word for it until I want one
> 
> Until then, I am neither skeptical nor interested.


I'm just happy that you acknowledge the existence


----------



## Brother David

Just a little imput , Even those who don't believe in God have Faith . Your Faith is that God's a myth . If you're right when I breathe my last breath , I will slip away to nothing . If I am right , I will be present with God . Either way , I know that those attending my funeral will be able to say that I changed my life and became a person that put others ahead of myself .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Just a little imput , Even those who don't believe in God have Faith . Your Faith is that God's a myth . If you're right when I breathe my last breath , I will slip away to nothing . If I am right , I will be present with God . Either way , I know that those attending my funeral will be able to say that I changed my life and became a person that put others ahead of myself .


If belief in God changed your life for the better that's a good thing.
As for us having "faith" that God is a myth... you've got that a bit twisted.
1. A god, particularly a specific one, has not been proven to exist.
That means as of right now gods/God are a "myth/belief".
There is no faith required, that's just a simple fact.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Just a little imput , Even those who don't believe in God have Faith . Your Faith is that God's a myth . If you're right when I breathe my last breath , I will slip away to nothing . If I am right , I will be present with God . Either way , I know that those attending my funeral will be able to say that I changed my life and became a person that put others ahead of myself .




Would you call your belief that when you sit down on a chair that it will support you faith based?  How about when you let go of a rock from some height? Do you have faith that it will fall down?  When The Astronauts of the Challenger space shuttle boarded, did they have faith that the shuttle would remain intact?  Do people buy a lottery ticket have faith that this one is a winner?  If all those things are matters of faith, then might be different kinds of faith.  What makes then different?  What are they based on? Just thinking aloud, along with you.


----------



## Brother David

Do you men who believe theirs no God believe or hope theirs no God . If you believe you have Faith . If you hope ask yourself why .


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Do you men who believe theirs no God believe or hope theirs no God . If you believe you have Faith . If you hope ask yourself why .



I don't want to couch my faith in a "numbers game" because it's not just "A God" or "No God".  There's 10s of thousands of Gods to choose from.  I can't hedge my bets.  I operate from the baseline that there are no Gods because there doesn't appear to be any.  That's where the different kinds of "faiths" I described above come into play.  I can rule out some specific ones, the major players, because of the kooky texts where they're described.  "Seven heads"...not likely.  "Rose from the dead"......Not likely either.  "An Unfathomable First Mover"....Maybe.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Do you men who believe theirs no God believe or hope theirs no God . If you believe you have Faith . If you hope ask yourself why .




I hope that if God exists that He's is less like the Abrahamic texts describe Him.  If He's like that, then in my opinion He doesn't deserve my worship.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Do you men who believe theirs no God believe or hope theirs no God . If you believe you have Faith . If you hope ask yourself why .


Word games.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Do you men who believe theirs no God believe or hope theirs no God . If you believe you have Faith . If you hope ask yourself why .


I my case neither. The lack of evidence of a god is why I do not acknowledge the existence of a god.

I think you are using the wrong definition of belief/believe.


----------



## Brother David

So your agnostic , that leads me back to my original post , I rather be ignorant of a true God, rather than ignorant theirs not .


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> So your agnostic , that leads me back to my original post , I rather be ignorant of a true God, rather than be ignorant there's not one .



I think this what you meant but I still don't quite understand your question.  Could you try to rephrase it?


----------



## Brother David

Just like I can't show the wind , I can't show you God . Therefore just like we feel the wind , I have felt  God . I was raised in Church , turned from God while so called being educated , but came to the realization that their has to more to life than just existing . I can't physically show you God , but I fill his presence continually in all I do . I am not anywhere near A perfect man , I just serve a perfect God , who created us to have a love relationship with Him . So I believe without a shadow of doubt God's 100 percent real . I can't show him to you ! I just believe , and I have felt him many times . If you don't believe in God , I don't think your a terrible person or without heart , just you haven't felt God's presents in your life yet . Therefore most people who doubt God's real are actually agnostic ( which means ignorant of/to ) ( not questioning your intelligence ) . Just like I can't show you God, you can't show me there's no God . In conclusion , if I am right I will hear well done my good and faithful servant . If you're right I won't hear anything when I breathe my last, so we both have faith ( belief ) we're right . Living a Godly life is extremely hard but ever so rewarding knowing that no matter what happens I have a future guaranteed through someone else's precious gift !!!!

I neither pity nor hate anyone , only care deeply for others and I pray daily that I will won't be a rock of offense to anyone !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Just like I can't show the wind , I can't show you God . Therefore just like we feel the wind , I have felt  God . I was raised in Church , turned from God while so called being educated , but came to the realization that their has to more to life than just existing . I can't physically show you God , but I fill his presence continually in all I do . I am not anywhere near A perfect man , I just serve a perfect God , who created us to have a love relationship with Him . So I believe without a shadow of doubt God's 100 percent real . I can't show him to you ! I just believe , and I have felt him many times . If you don't believe in God , I don't think your a terrible person or without heart , just you haven't felt God's presents in your life yet . Therefore most people who doubt God's real are actually agnostic ( which means ignorant of/to ) ( not questioning your intelligence ) . Just like I can't show you God, you can't show me there's no God . In conclusion , if I am right I will hear well done my good and faithful servant . If you're right I won't hear anything when I breathe my last, so we both have faith ( belief ) we're right . Living a Godly life is extremely hard but ever so rewarding knowing that no matter what happens I have a future guaranteed through someone else's precious gift !!!!
> 
> I neither pity nor hate anyone , only care deeply for others and I pray daily that I will won't be a rock of offense to anyone !


I'm doing pretty darn good myself without the wind.


----------



## Brother David

I was awoken from a very good night's sleep, which is extremely unusual with this thread on mind . I would like to ask each person reading this one more question . Do you carry a life insurance policy on yourself and why ? 

P S . No one can exist without the wind it's a scientific fact !


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I was awoken from a very good night's sleep, which is extremely unusual with this thread on mind . I would like to ask each person reading this one more question . Do you carry a life insurance policy on yourself and why ?
> 
> P S . No one can exist without the wind it's a scientific fact !


Although I/we can appreciate your sentiment...………… we've heard the "insurance policy" angle before.
Do you carry an insurance policy with ALL the gods? Or just one?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I was awoken from a very good night's sleep, which is extremely unusual with this thread on mind . I would like to ask each person reading this one more question . Do you carry a life insurance policy on yourself and why ?
> 
> P S . No one can exist without the wind it's a scientific fact !



Yes, the Mighty Stump out back shall make me an everlasting root as I turn to nourishment after I pass.

P S. Motorboats do just fine when there is no wind.


----------



## Brother David

There's only one God , Yaweh ! I have life insurance ,so when I die, my family will be taking care of. Christ died and arose for Us to give us the insurance of eternity . Christian serves the only living God all other religions serve dieties which are deceased . Therefore Christ gives us the insurance of eternity through his awesome gift and display of Love . I understand that you men don't recognize Christ as Savior ,but we can be friends and I will continue to pray and share with you about the goodness of the Messiah !


----------



## Israel

You can only measure the voltage drop across a resistor.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> There's only one God , Yaweh ! I have life insurance ,so when I die, my family will be taking care of. Christ died and arose for Us to give us the insurance of eternity . Christian serves the only living God all other religions serve dieties which are deceased . Therefore Christ gives us the insurance of eternity through his awesome gift and display of Love . I understand that you men don't recognize Christ as Savior ,but we can be friends and I will continue to pray and share with you about the goodness of the Messiah !


If you could take those claims and provide evidence to back them up, I'd me more likely to believe you.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You can only measure the voltage drop over a resistor.


So true.
Voltage is something. 
It's fluctuations can be measured.
There is a device to measure it.

I wish the claims you(and others) make were as measurable.


----------



## Israel

We believe the voltage measured_ in the device_ comes from outside it.
And likewise any voltage _measurable _has as source an infinite reserve.
Shocking.
We know.


----------



## Brother David

So let's look at science . I don't do well attaching links . Look up Amazing molecular machines in your body . Then ask yourself who built this or did this just happen .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> So let's look at science . I don't do well attaching links . Look up Amazing molecular machines in your body . Then ask yourself who built this or did this just happen .


Yes, who did build this?
Nothing says the god you worship did anything.
You cannot understand how it was built so you fill in the gaps with something that in it's essence would be more complex to understand than the molecular machine you use an example.
But, you are starting out about a few  thousand covered topix too late. These things have been discussed already. Since you are new I can see why you bring it up but the rest of us are way beyond "look at the sky, look at your body, look at wind..." because you do not understand it, it HAS to be this god right here...yep, this god right here. I can't wait until you use scripture to back up scripture. That is always a treat.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> So let's look at science . I don't do well attaching links . Look up Amazing molecular machines in your body . Then ask yourself who built this or did this just happen .


So outside of the Bible,  show me the evidence of who in fact did build molecular machines.


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> So let's look at science . I don't do well attaching links . Look up Amazing molecular machines in your body . Then ask yourself who built this or did this just happen .



I asked myself who built it and self said it just happened.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> So let's look at science . I don't do well attaching links . Look up Amazing molecular machines in your body . Then ask yourself who built this or did this just happen .


Yes the body is an amazing machine.
When you asked yourself who built this how did you determine God did this and not one of the other gods that also have a creation story?


----------



## Brother David

The printing press , the cotton gin , your computer or smart phone . Can you show me any other compex machine that just happened ?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> The printing press , the cotton gin , your computer or smart phone . Can you show me any other compex machine that just happened ?


You made your point. Now it is time for you to back it up.
We can show you who made those machines, it is your turn to back up your claim and show specifically which one of the thousands of gods did what you have yourself convinced they/it did,.. made molecules.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> The printing press , the cotton gin , your computer or smart phone . Can you show me any other compex machine that just happened ?


I just have to know..
Are you saying that ALL complex machines MUST have a creator?


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> The printing press , the cotton gin , your computer or smart phone . Can you show me any other compex machine that just happened ?


If you think the human body, printing press, cotton gins, computers, phones etc are complex machines...……  they aren't squat compared to how complex God is said to be.
Who do you figure made him?


----------



## Brother David

Absolutely!!!! All complex creations must have a creator . You men ask for some proof. Here's the awesome fact God he created each person beginning until the last and he knows every intricate detail . Only us as humans magnify and complicate the end result of his most wonderful creation . Genesis 1:26 .


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> If you think the human body, printing press, cotton gins, computers, phones etc are complex machines...……  they aren't squat compared to how complex God is said to be.
> Who do you figure made him?


Awww Walt...I was a Hungry Hippo waiting for that white ball to come my way!!!


----------



## Brother David

Don't allow my argument to frustrated you ! Meditate on it ! God has given us all a free will !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Absolutely!!!! All complex creations must have a creator . You men ask for some proof. Here's the awesome fact God he created each person beginning until the last and he knows every intricate detail . Only us as humans magnify and complicate the end result of his most wonderful creation . Genesis 1:26 .


1. Facts have evidence and proof. You provided neither other than you stating  "here is a fact".
2. Scripture is as good as the sunday comic strip. It literally means nothing in here. Scripture is backed up nowhere outside of itself. It is like asking a person who has robbed a bank to give an alibi and a witness, and he uses himself..
3. If your god is so complex WHO made your god?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Don't allow my argument to frustrated you ! Meditate on it ! God has given us all a free will !


Your grammar is more complex and frustrating than your argument.  You are not even in the pee-wee league for making a case to back up anything you have claimed so far , let alone capable of providing a substantial or frustrating argument.

Hit the "reply " under whoever you are answering...it will make things easier to follow.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Awww Walt...I was a Hungry Hippo waiting for that white ball to come my way!!!


Sorry I posted before I saw you were waiting on the pitch


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Absolutely!!!! All complex creations must have a creator . You men ask for some proof. Here's the awesome fact God he created each person beginning until the last and he knows every intricate detail . Only us as humans magnify and complicate the end result of his most wonderful creation . Genesis 1:26 .


Who created God?
If you give us the standard "nobody did, God always was".....
then you just proved your own point to be wrong that all complex things must have a creator.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry I posted before I saw you were waiting on the pitch


Thats ok, he is following the handbook to the T.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> Don't allow my argument to frustrated you ! Meditate on it ! God has given us all a free will !


The only thing that will frustrate us is if we answer all your questions but you ignore ours.


----------



## ky55

bullethead said:


> Thats ok, he is following the handbook to the T.



I’m guessing this will be the first time it doesn’t work.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> The only thing that will frustrate us is if we answer all your questions but you ignore ours.


Possibly meditating on it..


----------



## Brother David

No one created God that's what makes him God . He's the all knowing creator . I haven't laughed or made fun of you men . Why do we as people find it necessary to belittle when we don't understand .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> No one created God that's what makes him God . He's the all knowing creator . I haven't laughed or made fun of you men . Why do we as people find it necessary to belittle when we don't understand .


Listen,
You have come in here with extraordinary claims.
We have asked you nicely to just simply back up your claims. 
You have not.
Everything that you have said in here(while maybe new to you and seem like proof to you) has been said and discussed and put to rest a hundred times over already.

We are impatient and for that I apologize, but you cannot make the claims you do without expecting us to ask you to back it up with tangible evidence.

This notion that you have that everything must have a creator EXCEPT my creator is absolutely foolish and complete nonsense.

Why is it so hard to provide evidence of what is supposed to be the Ultimate Truth?.


----------



## Brother David

I regress ! It's all about Faith


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> No one created God that's what makes him God . He's the all knowing creator . I haven't laughed or made fun of you men . Why do we as people find it necessary to belittle when we don't understand .


Not laughing at you or belittling you Brother David.
You are making the point to us that all complex things must have a creator. 
Then you said nobody created God.
You proved your own point to be false.
Maybe try a different point.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> I regress ! It's all about Faith


Now that we can agree with.
Belief in God is based on faith. No argument from me on that.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Now that we can agree with.
> Belief in God is based on faith. No argument from me on that.


Exactly!
There are no facts to back it up, it is not logical, but I believe anyway is an honest answer that so few would admit to.


----------



## ky55

WaltL1 said:


> Now that we can agree with.
> Belief in God is based on faith. No argument from me on that.



That’s all it has ever been.
There’s nothing else to support it.


----------



## ambush80

Please explain how this can be true:



Brother David said:


> Absolutely!!!! All complex creations must have a creator . You men ask for some proof. Here's the awesome fact God he created each person beginning until the last and he knows every intricate detail . Only us as humans magnify and complicate the end result of his most wonderful creation . Genesis 1:26 .



And this can be true at the same time?



Brother David said:


> Don't allow my argument to frustrated you ! Meditate on it ! God has given us all a free will !



Does God know every detail?  Does that include who will be saved and who won't?  Or is He surprised when someone chooses to accept Him?  Have you ever wondered about questions like this before?


----------



## Brother David

The Bible teaches us that God calls us to Him .Even though many believe in predestination , that goes completely against what Christ taught . That would leave one to believe that God knows all . The Bible also teaches us that God is omnipresent and omnipotent . As difficult as it is to believe , I once too doubted God's existence , but through the miracles that I have witnessed and experienced , I know believe . I also owe you gentlemen an apology for not being able to answer all your questions with facts . I can only believe !!!!!!!


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> The Bible teaches us that God calls us to Him .Even though many believe in predestination , that goes completely against what Christ taught . That would leave one to believe that God knows all . The Bible also teaches us that God is omnipresent and omnipotent . As difficult as it is to believe , I once too doubted God's existence , but through the miracles that I have witnessed and experienced , I know believe . I also owe you gentlemen an apology for not being able to answer all your questions with facts . I can only believe !!!!!!!





> Even though many believe in predestination , that goes completely against what Christ taught .


We've had some good discussions on predestination here. We have Christians here that are for and against.


> I also owe you gentlemen an apology for not being able to answer all your questions with facts . I can only believe !!!!!!!


We understand that you cant answer our questions with facts. There aren't any facts to give that would prove God exists. Like you said, its based on faith/belief.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> The Bible teaches us that God calls us to Him .Even though many believe in predestination , that goes completely against what Christ taught . That would leave one to believe that God knows all . The Bible also teaches us that God is omnipresent and omnipotent . As difficult as it is to believe , I once too doubted God's existence , but through the miracles that I have witnessed and experienced , I know believe . I also owe you gentlemen an apology for not being able to answer all your questions with facts . I can only believe !!!!!!!



God is also omniscient which means He knows ALL. Doesn't _all _include who is saved and who isn't, and wouldn't he know this before they were born?

I suppose I'm trying to change your mind about predestination.  You might wonder why an unbeliever like me would want you to do that.  First, if you insist on believing in the veracity of the Bible, you should do it as logically consistently as you can.  Wouldn't God prefer you do that to the best of your abilities?  Secondly, you should reason properly in everything else you do. It will make you a better person and a better citizen.  If you can't solve this one, I can only imagine what else you are misthinking about.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> God is also omniscient which means He knows ALL. Doesn't _all _include who is saved and who isn't, and wouldn't he know this before they were born?
> 
> I suppose I'm trying to change your mind about predestination.  You might wonder why an unbeliever like me would want you to do that.  First, if you insist on believing in the veracity of the Bible, you should do it as logically consistently as you can.  Wouldn't God prefer you do that to the best of your abilities?  Secondly, you should reason properly in everything else you do. It will make you a better person and a better citizen.  If you can't solve this one, I can only imagine what else you are misthinking about.





> I suppose I'm trying to change your mind about predestination


Its kind of interesting, in all those years as a believer I just don't remember this as being much of a topic.  Maybe I wasn't paying attention that day but I always had the "God wants you, you just have to go to him" understanding. Anybody, everybody, no special guest list.
In practice, that's pretty much the opposite of "God chose you but not him" definition of predestination.
But there's no arguing that if God is omni-everything and you don't believe, its because he didn't intend you to believe.
Contradiction # 1830625348026..


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of interesting, in all those years as a believer I just don't remember this as being much of a topic.  Maybe I wasn't paying attention that day but I always had the "God wants you, you just have to go to him" understanding. Anybody, everybody, no special guest list.
> In practice, that's pretty much the opposite of "God chose you but not him" definition of predestination.
> But there's no arguing that if God is omni-everything and you don't believe, its because he didn't intend you to believe.
> Contradiction # 1830625348026..



It's a big one.  It seems way more important to sort out than "sprinkle or dunk".  I'm guessing there's a reason that it doesn't get much airplay on Sunday.


----------



## Brother David

If we are predestined to salvation , then where does Jesus fit in . For God so loved the world that he gave his only son for sacrifice so that those already guaranteed Heaven could __________ ? I not much into shoving Jesus on anyone , Jesus spoke the words if you love me ! I don't get into denominational arguments ! My life consist of loving the Lord thy God with all my heart, soul and mind and my neighbor as myself !


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> If we are predestined to salvation , then where does Jesus fit in . For God so loved the world that he gave his only son for sacrifice so that those already guaranteed Heaven could __________ ? I not much into shoving Jesus on anyone , Jesus spoke the words if you love me ! I don't get into denominational arguments ! My life consist of loving the Lord thy God with all my heart, soul and mind and my neighbor as myself !



This is an appeal for you to use your God given mind.

Well,  Jesus is God in man form.  I'm not sure how much "God power" he had.  He seems to know the future.  He says that one of the disciples would betray him.  Would it not make sense that as he met people in the street that he would know which ones were going to He11 and which ones were going to heaven?  Wouldn't he have known me all the way back then 2,000 years ago?  Wouldn't he know where my soul was going?

It's quite simple, is he all knowing or not?  If he is then you have to figure out a way to do some mental gymnastics to have freewill exist along side his omniscience.  I'll help you a bit.  Most Freewillers I've heard from will say something like "God can turn off His omniscience so that he doesn't know what you'll choose...But He's still omniscient".  That's the "Limited Freewill" argument (I know, it doesn't make sense.  None of these explanations will).  The other explanation people give is "God doesn't exist in space and time like we do" so for some reason that allows him to know everyting but not everything at the same time, or something like that.   The other way, which I anticipate that you'll adopt, is that "We don't know how there's freewill and God's omniscience and I don't care if it doesn't make sense.  I'll leave it at the foot of the Cross".

The question of freewill existing at the same time with God's omniscience is a flaw in the doctrine itself.  It's similar to the problem of God being all powerful.  Can He make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?  Or can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?  Most Christians I've met will dismiss these questions.  They'll say "They have no bearing on my salvation".  But they should.  If you're confused by these questions, or if they're confusing by nature, then there's some chicanery going on.  As a guy pointed out in the other thread "God does not confuse".  Maybe there's a less confusing way to think about your "eternal soul", should it exist.  Maybe someone else did a better job incorporating mind and soul.


----------



## Brother David

Where most get confused is not going back far enough . 
Eve then Adam went against God in the Garden , so with this rebellion Sin was brought into an otherwise stable situation . When Lucifer , Satan , ( which ever name you choose ) brought forth the rebellion it brought forth separation ! All have sinned and come short of the glory of God , thus been separated . Adam and Eve are the only two humans born of God , the rest of us are born of Men . Since Sin is the separating factor , our God allowed man to exist with the Knowledge of both choices . If God hadn't allowed this after the fall of man , He would have to have destory all and begin anew . 
    Instead of starting over , Yaweh has offered his creation the Offering of atonement through the sheeding of the blood of an umblemished lamb. Whether we choose this atonement is entirely up to us ,No one goes to the father except through / by me . 
   Becoming born again isn't a metaphor Jesus used , it is a true surrender to God's authority . 
   God does know heart , our thoughts and actions , that why God sent His Son , that's why we have the Counselor (The Holy Spirit) , so that we could re-enter that pure love relationship .  
  Remember God's not the Author of Confusion . Sinned confused everything we are trying to get through life until we re-enter that unconfusing life with God !


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Where most get confused is not going back far enough .
> Eve then Adam went against God in the Garden , so with this rebellion Sin was brought into an otherwise stable situation . When Lucifer , Satan , ( which ever name you choose ) brought forth the rebellion it brought forth separation ! All have sinned and come short of the glory of God , thus been separated . Adam and Eve are the only two humans born of God , the rest of us are born of Men . Since Sin is the separating factor , our God allowed man to exist with the Knowledge of both choices . If God hadn't allowed this after the fall of man , He would have to have destory all and begin anew .
> Instead of starting over , Yaweh has offered his creation the Offering of atonement through the sheeding of the blood of an umblemished lamb. Whether we choose this atonement is entirely up to us ,No one goes to the father except through / by me .
> Becoming born again isn't a metaphor Jesus used , it is a true surrender to God's authority .
> God does know heart , our thoughts and actions , that why God sent His Son , that's why we have the Counselor (The Holy Spirit) , so that we could re-enter that pure love relationship .
> Remember God's not the Author of Confusion . Sinned confused everything we are trying to get through life until we re-enter that unconfusing life with God !




Did God know that Satan would tempt Adam and Eve?  Did he know that Eve would succumb to Satan's temptation or was God like "Whoa!!! didn't see that one coming!"?

Didn't God kind of "start over" with The Flood?


----------



## ambush80

Can God stop Satan if he wanted to?  If He can, Why doesn't He?  If He doesn't stop Satan, does that mean he approves of what Satan does or at least doesn't mind?  

Let's say I own a dog named Satan.  Satan is completely under my control.  One day my neighbor sees my dog Satan chewing off his daughter's face while I watch.  He knows that I have complete control over Satan.  What's he to think?  I want Satan to chew his daughter's face off?  I don't mind that Satan is chewing his daughter's face off?  Or that I have some good reason for letting Satan chew his daughter's face off that I won't tell him?


----------



## Brother David

God can stop Satan at anytime and one day he will . Remember Lucifer means , of light. God's bright creation who instead of following the heavenily father chose to rebel.
God's not in the destroying business!!! 
God's in the rebuilding business!!!
One day God will RESTORE order !!! 
Why rush , that's a human response !!! 
Be patient , trust in the Lord and one day all will be revealed !!! 

Just as Earthly parents do , God doesn't explain all decision . We must simply trust in him and remain faithful !

Why rush , slow down , Hunt , Fish enjoy the day which the Lord has made and one day all things we be revealed.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> God can stop Satan at anytime and one day he will . Remember Lucifer means , of light. God's bright creation who instead of following the heavenily father chose to rebel.
> God's not in the destroying business!!!
> God's in the rebuilding business!!!
> One day God will RESTORE order !!!
> Why rush , that's a human response !!!
> Be patient , trust in the Lord and one day all will be revealed !!!
> 
> Just as Earthly parents do , God doesn't explain all decision . We must simply trust in him and remain faithful !
> 
> Why rush , slow down , Hunt , Fish enjoy the day which the Lord has made and one day all things we be revealed.



Did God know that Satan would rebel?  Was there a chance that Satan was not going to do what God knew he would?  How about Eve?  Did God know what she was gonna do?

You're really avoiding these kinds of questions.  Why?


----------



## bullethead

Claim:


Brother David said:


> God can stop Satan at anytime and one day he will .


Evidence:
?




Brother David said:


> Remember Lucifer means , of light. God's bright creation who instead of following the heavenily father chose to rebel.


According to the story told by an ancient culture.



Brother David said:


> God's not in the destroying business!!!


Except for all the people he purposely killed in the Bible, ESPECIALLY EVERYONE but 8. Lets call it 20 MILLION people destroyed.

Claim:


Brother David said:


> God's in the rebuilding business!!!


Evidence:
?

Assertion:


Brother David said:


> One day God will RESTORE order !!!


When? In Bible time it's at least 6000 years. If you can say what god will and won't do, tell us when it will be done.



Brother David said:


> Why rush , that's a human response !!!


A human responce to human writings.

Claim:


Brother David said:


> Be patient , trust in the Lord and one day all will be revealed !!!


Evidence:
?



Brother David said:


> Just as Earthly parents do , God doesn't explain all decision . We must simply trust in him and remain faithful !


How do you know how god operates?

Claim:


Brother David said:


> Why rush , slow down , Hunt , Fish enjoy the day which the Lord has made and one day all things we be revealed.


How has the Lord made this day? When will all things be revealed?


----------



## Brother David

Men , I must bow out your way smarter than I . I don't know all the answers of life , apparently many do . I have already apologized to my Lord for my shortcomings , now I ask you to forgive me for not being able to provide you with the answers you seek . Maybe one day .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Men , I must bow out your way smarter than I . I don't know all the answers of life , apparently many do . I have already apologized to my Lord for my shortcomings , now I ask you to forgive me for not being able to provide you with the answers you seek . Maybe one day .


Please do not be insulted in any way. I ask you these things in the hopes that you were the man (possibly sent by the very god you worship) that could be the guy to answer what no one else so far can answer. I respect the time that you have taken to talk with us in here. I hope that you stick around. Possibly you have some answers we are seeking.


----------



## ky55

Brother David said:


> Men , I must bow out your way smarter than I . I don't know all the answers of life , apparently many do . I have already apologized to my Lord for my shortcomings , now I ask you to forgive me for not being able to provide you with the answers you seek . Maybe one day .



Two questions before you leave:

Does your congregation accept without question all of the assertions that you have made here?
If they don’t, how do you answer their questions any better than the questions you have been asked here?

*


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Men , I must bow out your way smarter than I . I don't know all the answers of life , apparently many do . I have already apologized to my Lord for my shortcomings , now I ask you to forgive me for not being able to provide you with the answers you seek . Maybe one day .



Thanks for your participation.


----------



## Brother David

My congregation isn't looking for an argument , we believe on the name the Jesus without unnecessary accusations of my inadequatcies as a man of God . I was almost sure that at some point the aggression of those who don't believe would come out. I respect all of us who were able to have an intelligent conversation without insult . It showed a very high level of respect for both sides . I completely disagree of course with no God , but I choose not to put out scripture , rather to pour out my heart and I believe my congregation would approve of me trying to bring God to those who seek .


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> My congregation isn't looking for an argument , we believe on the name the Jesus without unnecessary accusations of my inadequatcies as a man of God . I was almost sure that at some point the aggression of those who don't believe would come out. I respect all of us who were able to have an intelligent conversation without insult . It showed a very high level of respect for both sides . I completely disagree of course with no God , but I choose not to put out scripture , rather to pour out my heart and I believe my congregation would approve of me trying to bring God to those who seek .





> I believe my congregation would approve of me trying to bring God to those who seek


You have learned here (hopefully) that when you and your congregation "bring God" to us...… we are going to have questions. Just pouring your heart out, while we can appreciate that, is not going to change our minds or make us "see" God.
If you and your congregation are hoping to have any success "bringing God to us", you are going to have to have answers to those questions.
If you are just fulfilling your responsibility as a Christian to "spread the Word", then yes you have done so.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You have learned here (hopefully) that when you and your congregation "bring God" to us...… we are going to have questions. Just pouring your heart out, while we can appreciate that, is not going to change our minds or make us "see" God.
> If you and your congregation are hoping to have any success "bringing God to us", you are going to have to have answers to those questions.
> If you are just fulfilling your responsibility as a Christian to "spread the Word", then yes you have done so.


Religion, beliefs, god is easy when you are among like minded individuals who question nothing.
When pressed in here though many are quick to bow out because they don't want to deal with the questions. Thinking causes them to retreat rather than answer. While I applaud the tenacity of the ones who are regulars,  they are STILL unable to back up their continous claims and assertions with evidence or facts.

I have never known anything else marketed as being So True/The TRUTH that is so hard to prove.
Claims on the magnitude that are made in here should be as easy to back up as the Sun rising every day if in fact their god and bible had even a hint of truth to them.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> My congregation isn't looking for an argument , we believe on the name the Jesus without unnecessary accusations of my inadequatcies as a man of God . I was almost sure that at some point the aggression of those who don't believe would come out. I respect all of us who were able to have an intelligent conversation without insult . It showed a very high level of respect for both sides . I completely disagree of course with no God , but I choose not to put out scripture , rather to pour out my heart and I believe my congregation would approve of me trying to bring God to those who seek .


Do not confuse sincere requests for you to be able to back up what you are claiming as agression. There comes a time in every conversation when extraordinary claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence.
Anybody can say and in fact does say whatever the heck they want. It is only those that are able to back it up that are deemed credible.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Do not confuse sincere requests for you to be able to back up what you are claiming as agression. There comes a time in every conversation when extraordinary claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence.
> Anybody can say and in fact does say whatever the heck they want. It is only those that are able to back it up that are deemed credible.



I think he was saying he was glad no one got aggressive.  He was expecting it and it never came.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I think he was saying he was glad no one got aggressive.  He was expecting it and it never came.


I just do not want him to take it the wrong way if he chooses to stick around.
 "I/we" have patiently listened to the same things that darn near every newbie starts out with and that have been discussed in here repeatedly.
I think we asked minor thought provoking questions in order to better give him an idea of what is expected on either side in here. It definitely gets more intense and I don't want that confused with agression with disrepect rather than upping the ante of requirement as the claims grow. There comes a time in every discussion where backing up claims is the only thing that counts.


----------



## Brother David

The only quote that was offensive was the questioning my congregation and my ability to serve . Bullethead , Ambush80 , you men have been civil . 

One question I haven't asked is where do you BELIEVE , Earth , us , all things came from ?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> The only quote that was offensive was the questioning my congregation and my ability to serve . Bullethead , Ambush80 , you men have been civil .
> 
> One question I haven't asked is where do you BELIEVE , Earth , us , all things came from ?


I am more confident than not that the entire Universe including Earth came from an event that is best described by the Big Bang. I base that off of the best information that Scientists have been able to agree upon which comes from a  More Likely Than Not determination based off of the Available Evidence. That could change as new evidence is found.
 It took billions of years for things to form from that event to what they are now. And there is no telling what the future brings. Quite frankly, the Earth is a fragile piece of real estate that sits in a dangerous spot where any number of events  from within or outside of the planet which are beyond human control could and would wipe out all existing life on the planet in an instant.

I am honest enough to fully admit that I do not know what happened or what was One second before that Big Bang occurred.  I am not unrealistic to think there are unlimited possibilities of what could have been.
I also cannot in good conscience place a something in there to fill in the gaps that I do not know, and may not ever know because I am just not smart enough to understand if the day comes that the answer is available. That is all a personal thing with me and why I think the way that I do.


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> The only quote that was offensive was the questioning my congregation and my ability to serve . Bullethead , Ambush80 , you men have been civil .
> 
> One question I haven't asked is where do you BELIEVE , Earth , us , all things came from ?


I don't know.
Scietific evidence leads in the direction of a Big Bang type of event.
However I don't think that has been proven to be a fact.
Sooo…… I don't know where Earth, us, all things came from.


----------



## Brother David

Joking of course !!! Try this seven day course . If not happy with results repeat

1.Take your most treasured pistol
2. Brake it completely down 
3. Take your blender 
4. Place pistol in blender 
5. Press start , leave running continually
6 . Record results daily 
7. Rest


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> The only quote that was offensive was the questioning my congregation and my ability to serve . Bullethead , Ambush80 , you men have been civil .
> 
> One question I haven't asked is where do you BELIEVE , Earth , us , all things came from ?



I believe that I don't know.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Joking of course !!! Try this seven day course . If not happy with results repeat
> 
> 1.Take your most treasured pistol
> 2. Brake it completely down
> 3. Take your blender
> 4. Place pistol in blender
> 5. Press start , leave running continually
> 6 . Record results daily
> 7. Rest




You've not thought about this very much have you?  This is an old apologist argument.  It takes many forms: Tornado through a junkyard makes a 747 or a watch, Infinite monkeys typing for infinity writing Shakespeare, Finding writing on Mars, and some others.  The point of all of them is to say that complex systems like human beings had to have been designed because they're so complicated.  I'll include this link but I have a hunch you won't read all of it so I'll try to summarize it as best I can.  I want you to learn how to think clearly.  Keep your faith if you need to but in all other parts of your life try your best to think clearly.

https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-tornado-in-a-junkyard-fallacy/

Biological organisms aren't like mechanical objects or machines.  The materials that make up machines like rivets and screws aren't like as the parts that make up trees or animals: cells, organs, bark.  There's a record of how these parts of plants and animals developed.  If you don't agree with the clues about how these things came about then there's no need to go on.  If you don't think that evolution happens or you think that scientists are interpreting the clues wrong then there's no more discussion to be had.  Watch this and see if you think it's wrong.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A screw or rivet will not spontaneously arise from a chunk of iron or aluminum.  Parts of planes or guns like plastic (if you're a Glock guy) don't even occur in nature.  All the things that make up living organisms occur in nature.  Cellular structures can be traced back to simpler forms.  No one can go back in time and prove that this happened but it's like a detective show.  The detectives (scientists) look at the clues and try to come up with a best guess of what happened. 

Put aside pistols in blenders and tornadoes in junkyards for a minute and go back further in time to when people first came to be.  They had crude technology,  At one point the height of technology was a rock that had been broken in such a way that it created a cutting edge. Could that happen naturally?  Sure.  So if we find a rock that's broken like that on Mars, it doesn't necessarily mean that there was intelligence responsible for it.  A spear point chipped from flint is different.  It probably wouldn't occur naturally.  That points to intelligence. How about the spots on a trout?  Does that necessarily point to intelligence?  Are they as certain to point to an intelligence as a steel cable?  That's wy your analogy doesn't work.  Do you see that?  If not, why not?


----------



## ambush80

Brother David,

I'm not asking this as an insult but if you want to discuss this stuff then I have to know if you had any high school biology or science because if you did then I'm probably wasting my time re-hashing things you've heard before .  I type with two fingers so I'd just as soon not try to explain stuff that you already know about.


----------



## Brother David

I completely understand biology , that's why I believe in creation , rather than 1 in an quadrillion chance !


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I completely understand biology , that's why I believe in creation , rather than 1 in an quadrillion chance !


Do you understsnd that those odds are a ONE TIME try?
Can you fathom ALL the elements, chemicals and molecules constantly mixing and mingling in every available  atmosphere condition that exists all throughout the Universe? Can you imagine that taking place a quadrillion times per second  every second of every minute of every hour of every day for Billions and Billions of years? And STILL taking place today everywhere all over the Universe today??

What odds do you place on SOMETHING happeneing somewhere under those conditions? 

We are an expression of the available chemistry set.
Change one thing and we are gone.


----------



## Brother David

No I can't , Imagine how it all works , but I God KNOWS how it all works , and only a master builder would ! I am not nearly smart enough to be agnostic , I am only smart enough to BELIEVE !!!


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> I completely understand biology , that's why I believe in creation , rather than 1 in an quadrillion chance !



What about biology in particular is the best evidence for you of Creationism?


----------



## Brother David

The Cell !!!! A miracle of engineering


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> No I can't , Imagine how it all works , but I God KNOWS how it all works , and only a master builder would ! I am not nearly smart enough to be agnostic , I am only smart enough to BELIEVE !!!



I think we should leave it at that.  I'm glad you found a reason in to be good and to feel like you have answers to the hard questions in life. Just like not everyone wants to be a farmer, not everyone wants to be a physicist.


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> The Cell !!!! A miracle of engineering



Cells are very cool.


----------



## Brother David

Ambush80 ,
   I don't nor am I trying to convert you ! I am simply trying to provide information that I think will help . Only God can convert and can we be converted by seeking him.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> No I can't , Imagine how it all works ,


That is an honest and acceptable answer that I can appreciate.



Brother David said:


> but I God KNOWS how it all works , and only a master builder would !


Now it is the added Assertion and Claims that I cannot help but ask for proof from the person making such things.



Brother David said:


> I am not nearly smart enough to be agnostic , I am only smart enough to BELIEVE !!!


That is an honest statement.


Now, what if I made similar replies to you and in the middle of such things I asserted that the ONLY way that you are able to read my replies is Because the Greatest God of all THE MIGHTY OAK STUMP allows it. And as proof ,I say well since you ARE reading it...THAT is the Proof!!!

Wouldnt you think i was just a bit flaky and want to know more info to back up my claim?


----------



## Brother David

Absolutely , I will concluded that the Bible and all things God are and can be confusing. I once too allowed all these unanswered questions to control me. Once I gave it over to the Lord , I achieved peace in my life . I still have major battles with anger , jealousy , strife , but I don't allow those to control me . I know this sounds small , but I gave all this over to a big God and take it one day at time , heck one minute , second !


----------



## WaltL1

Brother David said:


> No I can't , Imagine how it all works , but I God KNOWS how it all works , and only a master builder would ! I am not nearly smart enough to be agnostic , I am only smart enough to BELIEVE !!!


Sure you are.
Not believing gods exist if no gods can be proven to exist isn't all that complicated.


----------



## Brother David

Sure it is , proving God doesn't exist is way more difficult than proving He does .

Please give me one more example of life other than Earth .

Remember there was a time when all the world's greatest minds thought the earth was flat . Man were they wrong ! 

Is global warming the result of , wait , wait !

It's no longer global warming , it's now climate change because it's getting colder in some areas .

No Wait , there has always been fluctuations in Temperature , but this time it's man-made. I am confused . 

Why would want to believe men whose hypothesis are continuing to be proven wrong ?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Absolutely , I will concluded that the Bible and all things God are and can be confusing. I once too allowed all these unanswered questions to control me. Once I gave it over to the Lord , I achieved peace in my life . I still have major battles with anger , jealousy , strife , but I don't allow those to control me . I know this sounds small , but I gave all this over to a big God and take it one day at time , heck one minute , second !


I have more peace now without a diety in my life than when I did. I got rid of a big god.
Do we cancel each other out?


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Sure it is , proving God doesn't exist is way more difficult than proving He does .
> 
> Please give me one more example of life other than Earth .
> 
> Remember there was a time when all the world's greatest minds thought the earth was flat . Man were they wrong !
> 
> Is global warming the result of , wait , wait !
> 
> It's no longer global warming , it's now climate change because it's getting colder in some areas .
> 
> No Wait , there has always been fluctuations in Temperature , but this time it's man-made. I am confused .
> 
> Why would want to believe men whose hypothesis are continuing to be proven wrong ?



Because it's the best thing we've got.  The people who resisted the idea that the Earth was round were the clergy because they interpret the Bible as talking about the Earth as a disc.  The church was also the people who killed astronomers that said the sun was at the center of the solar system.  Every time science disproves a claim about the natural world that contradicts religious texts it sticks.  Our understanding has never gone the reverse direction. 

I don't know how old you are but if you're over 40 you'll remember that they taught us that atoms were like balls connected by sticks.  Remember that? Before I graduated from college, people commonly thought of atoms as pieces of matter that circled around like a little solar system.  Remember that?  Way before all that people in ancient Greece thought that there were basic elements that made up everything.  Then they thought that everything was made up of tiny pieces of stuff like Legos.  Now high schoolers are taught that atoms aren't even solid, that they're more like oozing clouds of honey and that electrons are both particles and waves.  Were any of them wrong?  Are they wrong now? 

Do you already know about this stuff? Am I boring you?

You guys like to say "Prove to me there's no God".  Prove to me there's no life on other planets.  Prove to me there's not a teapot orbiting Mars.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Sure it is , proving God doesn't exist is way more difficult than proving He does .
> 
> Please give me one more example of life other than Earth .
> 
> Remember there was a time when all the world's greatest minds thought the earth was flat . Man were they wrong !
> 
> Is global warming the result of , wait , wait !
> 
> It's no longer global warming , it's now climate change because it's getting colder in some areas .
> 
> No Wait , there has always been fluctuations in Temperature , but this time it's man-made. I am confused .
> 
> Why would want to believe men whose hypothesis are continuing to be proven wrong ?


Whatever life is on this planet exists because the conditions are right for these lifeforms to live.
I/we/ the smartest humans do not know what may or may not exist on the next closest planet, let alone on every planet(hundreds upon hundreds of trillions) throughout the Universe, or what form that life may be.

Do you think this place was specifically made for us to live on and on and on perfectly as a species??

It would be the equivalent of placing your childs crib and raising them in the middle of a 4 lane freeway. It's not gonna be a matter of IF but WHEN.
We are one mile wide space rock away from instant extinction.


----------



## Brother David

Of Al the pictures we have of Mars , I never noticed the tea pot . 

So science keeps proving themselves wrong ? 

There have been way too many killed on this Earth by differences of all kind . I think we can agree on that !

The Word's of Christ are 2000 years old. The Historian Josephus acknowledge Christ existence . Even the Great Roman Empire acknowledge Christ ! 

We love to quote history , but I don't need history , Christ is right here right with me !!!


----------



## Brother David

I don't think the Earth will be destroyed . I know the Earth will be destroyed , by earthqakes , meteors , and warfare , that's Bible ! 

Would the exist as we know if it was 1000 miles closer or farther from the Sun ?

What would happen if the Earth slowed down 1000 mph ?

What would happen if the Earth tilted 10 degrees on way or the other ?

What would happen if Earth stopped wobbling ? 

Of it's perfectly placed !!!


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> Of Al the pictures we have of Mars , I never noticed the tea pot .
> 
> So science keeps proving themselves wrong ?
> 
> There have been way too many killed on this Earth by differences of all kind . I think we can agree on that !
> 
> The Word's of Christ are 2000 years old. The Historian Josephus acknowledge Christ existence . Even the Great Roman Empire acknowledge Christ !
> 
> We love to quote history , but I don't need history , Christ is right here right with me !!!



I'm not interested in convincing you of anything anymore, Brother David.  Go with God.  Love your neighbor as your self and love your God.  Be blessed.


----------



## Brother David

If you ever need to talk send a PM I am available . I wasn't laughing at you , the tea pot comment was humorous in itself .


----------



## ambush80

Brother David said:


> If you ever need to talk send a PM I am available . I wasn't laughing at you , the tea pot comment was humorous in itself .



Thanks.  We all find different things funny. We should all find some things funny.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Of Al the pictures we have of Mars , I never noticed the tea pot .
> 
> So science keeps proving themselves wrong ?
> 
> There have been way too many killed on this Earth by differences of all kind . I think we can agree on that !
> 
> The Word's of Christ are 2000 years old. The Historian Josephus acknowledge Christ existence . Even the Great Roman Empire acknowledge Christ !
> 
> We love to quote history , but I don't need history , Christ is right here right with me !!!


It has been proven that Josephus writing about Jesus were later additions. Forgeries.
Show us what the Great Roman Empire actually acknowledged about Christ.

Since he is there with you, send him my way. He knows my address. I have some questions for him.


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I don't think the Earth will be destroyed . I know the Earth will be destroyed , by earthqakes , meteors , and warfare , that's Bible !
> 
> Would the exist as we know if it was 1000 miles closer or ****her from the Sun ?
> 
> What would happen if the Earth slowed down 1000 mph ?
> 
> What would happen if the Earth tilted 10 degrees on way or the other ?
> 
> What would happen if Earth stopped wobbling ?
> 
> Of it's perfectly placed !!!


The earth doesnt exist for our benefit, we are a product of the conditions. When those conditions change, we go bye bye.

The sun IS burning out. One day conditions will change. Are you telling me your god designed the conditions to change to kill us off?


----------



## Brother David

I have already asked God to go your way !!! Now God is waiting on you , can't get there selfishly only submissive .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I have already asked God to go your way !!! Now God is waiting on you , can't get there selfishly only submissive .


My front door is unlocked, the porch light is on and while I await his Uber to show, can you show me where the Great Roman Empire acknowledged the miracles of Jesus Christ?


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> I have already asked God to go your way !!! Now God is waiting on you , can't get there selfishly only submissive .


The very people that lived among and with Jesus NEVER wrote down a single event that supposedly happened while Jesus was among them.
No common person, no aristocrat, no teacher, no Rabbi, no Pharisees,  no Foreign visitor, no King, No Queen, NOBODY, LITERALLY NOBODY who were supposedly present when Jesus healed people, brought them back from the dead,  walked on water, turned water to wine, came back from the dead himself and LITERALLY  ascended into the sky was NOT recorded by any person that was there.
Think about that.
Were these things SO common that nobody even batted an eye?
Surely even a pagan, non believer, believer in another god would be impressed enough to jot down about the flying Jew that flew into the clouds, even if they did not know who he was supposed to be.

Why do you think that is?


It took at least 30-70 years (for the writings that were accepted to make it into the bible, while other stories that were also written in those times being rejected because they did not tell flattering tales )for anonymous writers and writers who were not there, didnt know Jesus, didn't meet Jesus, never laid eyes on Jesus..to write down the stories about him.
Can you explain why?


----------



## Brother David

Not exactly sure where you got your facts . I was baffled by the nobodies who . 
 Matthew was a Disciple , Mark was at the Garden of Gethsemane , Luke the Gentile physican travelled with the Disciples and John the Revelator was one of his closest Disciples .

Don't forget that this was still somewhat a Betowin society . Quite often in these societies and still today all history is giving Orally .

As with all books about real and historical people we could argue about what was and was not included .


----------



## bullethead

Brother David said:


> Not exactly sure where you got your facts . I was baffled by the nobodies who .
> Matthew was a Disciple , Mark was at the Garden of Gethsemane , Luke the Gentile physican travelled with the Disciples and John the Revelator was one of his closest Disciples .
> 
> Don't forget that this was still somewhat a Betowin society . Quite often in these societies and still today all history is giving Orally .
> 
> As with all books about real and historical people we could argue about what was and was not included .


Brother, you REALLY need to do some research on who even biblical scholars agree who did and who did not pen those writings.
There is no way you are basing your replies off of research. You are using what you have been told or taught, not what is factually true.

If AT LEAST 500 people witnessed the ascension from all walks of life and nationalities are you telling me that they just talked about it for 30 years?!?!?!?! Until some of Jesus buddies decided to write it down 30 years later?


----------

