# It's a bird! It's a plan! It's a...Christian Physicst?



## Thanatos

Great read if y'all have the time. It could generate some good conversation. Probably not though...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/


----------



## EverGreen1231

Thanatos said:


> Great read if y'all have the time. It could generate some good conversation. Probably not though...
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-knocking-philosophy-falsification-free-will/



The second answer given by Ellis is likely to give most here considerable pause.  But, then again, perhaps not.

To me, it is unfathomable why anyone would want to continue to explore the very small and large when the vast landscapes of biology and medicine, for which there is absolutely no mathematical basis, stand open and ready for real scientific development.

Something still can't come from nothing. This does not change just because there are layers of obfuscation in the form of mathematics and physical theories that look like some grotesque exercise.


----------



## JustUs4All

From the article, a question:
Horgan: Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have been bashing philosophy as a waste of time. Do you agree?

The answer:
Ellis: If they really believe this they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.

Me likey.


----------



## EverGreen1231

JustUs4All said:


> From the article, a question:
> Horgan: Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have been bashing philosophy as a waste of time. Do you agree?
> 
> The answer:
> Ellis: If they really believe this they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.
> 
> Me likey.



The aforementioned is one of the reasons I give Krauss, Tyson, and the rest of the 'Discovery Channel Physicists' little more than half a glance; and I certainly assign no gravitas to anything they have to say. On top of their relative scientific unimportance, they're crumby philosophers too.


----------



## ambush80

_Horgan: Are you a fan of multiverse theories? String theory? The anthropic principle?

No (may be true but unproveable, much too much untestable speculation about existence of infinities of entities, ill defined and untestable probability measures), no (too much speculative introduction of very complex unseeable entities, treats gravity just like any other force), yes (however one responds to it, it’s a real question that deserves consideration). Fine tuning of fundamental physics parameters is required in order that we can exist. Examining this issue has led to many very interesting studies._


The same could be said of any theory of a Prime Mover.  The difference is in the METHOD of arriving at those theories.

My Mom came for a visit a few weeks ago and saw a copy of _Worlds Without End: The Many Lives Of the Multiverse_ by Mary-Jane Rubenstein on my coffee table.  She looked it over briefly and then put it down.  We had  lunch with her yesterday and she asked me if I believed that there are Multiverses.  I said "I don't know".  She asked me if Heaven might be a Multiverse.  I told her that I don't completely understand the theory but if what I do understand of it is correct then yes, Heaven exists  in one of them (like every other conceivable reality) and at the same time there is a version of reality where it doesn't exist.

She asked me where the idea of the Multiverse came from and I told her that the idea has its origins hundreds of years before Christ.  Prototype versions of it were theorized by the Ancient Greeks (which is what Rubenstein's book is about).  She then asked me why some physicists believe in the theory and I told her as best I could, though I don't completely understand the math,  about how they arrived at the theory.  She said that sounds like faith and asked why I would even consider it a possibility.  Then we discussed the scientific method.

I told her that in antiquity, some astronomers looked at the behavior of Heavenly bodies and postulated that at a certain location, at a certain time, if one were to be able too see far enough, that there would be a planet of "such and such" a size "right there".  Though they couldn't see it themselves with their ancient technology they were able to predict a planet and they were right.  She said that science has made some mistakes as well as gotten things right which is absolutely true but I reminded her that one of the great motivating forces in science is to try to disprove existing scientific theory.  Indeed, if someone can disprove a long held scientific theory false they will be highly rewarded.  No such mechanism exists in faith based belief.

If we have reached the limits of our ability to experiment (for now), what then?  Who should we turn to as an expert on the Nature of Reality and what are their qualifications?  Where did they get their information?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> _Horgan: Are you a fan of multiverse theories? String theory? The anthropic principle?
> 
> No (may be true but unproveable, much too much untestable speculation about existence of infinities of entities, ill defined and untestable probability measures), no (too much speculative introduction of very complex unseeable entities, treats gravity just like any other force), yes (however one responds to it, it’s a real question that deserves consideration). Fine tuning of fundamental physics parameters is required in order that we can exist. Examining this issue has led to many very interesting studies._
> 
> 
> The same could be said of any theory of a Prime Mover.  The difference is in the METHOD of arriving at those theories.
> 
> My Mom came for a visit a few weeks ago and saw a copy of _Worlds Without End: The Many Lives Of the Multiverse_ by Mary-Jane Rubenstein on my coffee table.  She looked it over briefly and then put it down.  We had  lunch with her yesterday and she asked me if I believed that there are Multiverses.  I said "I don't know".  She asked me if Heaven might be a Multiverse.  I told her that I don't completely understand the theory but if what I do understand of it is correct then yes, Heaven exists  in one of them (like every other conceivable reality) and at the same time there is a version of reality where it doesn't exist.
> 
> She asked me where the idea of the Multiverse came from and I told her that the idea has its origins hundreds of years before Christ.  Prototype versions of it were theorized by the Ancient Greeks (which is what Rubenstein's book is about).  She then asked my why some physicists believe in the theory and I told her as best I could, though I don't completely understand the math,  about how they arrived at the theory.  She said that sounds like faith and asked why I would even consider it a possibility.  Then we discussed the scientific method.
> 
> I told her that in antiquity, some astronomers looked at the behavior of Heavenly bodies and postulated that at a certain location, at a certain time, if one were to be able too see far enough, that there would be a planet of "such and such" a size "right there".  Though they couldn't see it themselves with their ancient technology they were able to predict a planet and they were right.  She said that science has made some mistakes as well as gotten things right which is absolutely true but I reminded her that one of the great motivating forces in science is to try to disprove existing scientific theory.  Indeed, if someone can disprove a long held scientific theory false they will be highly rewarded.  No such mechanism exists in faith based belief.
> 
> If we have reached the limits of our ability to experiment (for now), what then?  Who should we turn to as an expert on the Nature of Reality and what are their qualifications?  Where did they get their information?



I do not agree.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> I do not agree.



Do tell.

So, there are people of faith, where their primary purpose, is to disprove God's word or the existence of God?
Seems by definition to be a lost cause but, I am all ears(eyes).


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I do not agree.





660griz said:


> Do tell.
> 
> So, there are people of faith, where their primary purpose, is to disprove God's word or the existence of God?
> Seems by definition to be a lost cause but, I am all ears(eyes).



Yes, Isreal.  Please elaborate.


----------



## centerpin fan

ambush80 said:


> Yes, Isreal.  Please elaborate.


----------



## ambush80

centerpin fan said:


>



Forgive me.  I know know not what I do......


----------



## Israel

The cross.


----------



## ambush80

I said:

"Though they couldn't see it themselves with their ancient technology they were able to predict a planet and they were right. She said that science has made some mistakes as well as gotten things right which is absolutely true but I reminded her that one of the great motivating forces in science is to try to disprove existing scientific theory. Indeed, if someone can disprove a long held scientific theory false they will be highly rewarded. No such mechanism exists in faith based belief."

and in response to the part you highlighted in red you said:



Israel said:


> The cross.



The cross is the mechanism which falsifies faith?


----------



## Israel

The cross is the correcting "mechanism".
The cross is that which when confronted by man, even whom I might call a man of faith (whom you might call a man of religion) informs him his understanding is not yet complete, and which, in many circumstances, may be a total rebuke to all his previous assumptions. (and work)
Indeed, it is.

If one were to speak of the "good faith" scientist, wouldn't that matter of _highly rewarded_ have to take on a clear definition (at least between you and I)?
You may be many things to me, but are you a naif? I trust you understand the concept of contamination in any pursuit. 
You tell me you are a builder of sorts, given charge over some in your employ. You carry a level. What your men build represents you, at least to the extent you _identify_ with your business. What is created _in your name_. You accept certain things, reject others. (and you have mouths to feed, too).

You know the difference, I trust, in your own estimation of _good_, good _enough_, and not acceptable.
But do you always account for parallax when looking at that bubble? I am confident you at least make an earnest attempt to set your eyes perpendicular to its axis. But regardless, we both know you do not send your level out each hour to have it checked for its own trueness.

I would not call you a sloppy worker, nor an incompetent boss, but that, really is immaterial. As boss, you have every right to conduct yourself in your own business as you see fit.

And just as I would only be presumptuous to try to hold you to a standard of all the things I could possibly prescribe necessary to a "perfect" structure built in your name (cause it ain't my name on the letterhead)...so it is, all will be shown how we have built.

But you would also be remiss to imagine (as I surely would be of you) that the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is less open to reproof, rebuke, total destruction of "his work" when found unfit, and outright demand to leave the job site when not rightly discharging his duty to his boss. 

The cross gives him permission to work, as eyes, ears and hands and mind might to a scientist...but it also is the mechanism that reminds him, no matter what you have seen, done, imagined, or built, it can all, at any moment be displayed as far from perfect as the blind cobblers work. He lives with this, because the cross has also delivered him to a place where he knows he is son, and not employee. And even, no especially, when he finds he has been "all wrong" about everything...it's really been made, alright.

No man "wants" to suffer loss anymore than he wants to miss reward. And this very thing is accounted for perfectly in the cross.


----------



## gordon 2

Quote [Indeed, if someone can disprove a long held scientific theory false they will be highly rewarded. No such mechanism exists in faith based belief.] End Quote

Really? Long held faith beliefs and belief on what faith is was  not challenged by all the  suspected heresies, and their fall out, of the reformation period as an example? -- and to the extent that it has spun out even non believers, I think called  atheists and agnostics, not to mention countless denominations all suspect of one's genuine faith and all with  countless doctrines under the banner of Christianity? 

There is a mechanism that exists in faith based belief to check up on itself and all possibilities. It is practiced  to varying effect by many from the local prophet who has a denomination all of his own up to the University professionals who crave their sabbaticals and sweat their dark nights on who is saved.

 For many this is as a gift, a calling ( for better or worse),  and in the process of "shewin thyself" they test the truth on faith for many:  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15


----------



## 660griz

gordon 2 said:


> Really? Long held faith beliefs and belief on what faith is was  not challenged by all the  suspected heresies, and their fall out, of the reformation period as an example?


 Well, yea. But, that doesn't count as a believer trying to find issues. 
Heresy- belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The cross is the correcting "mechanism".
> The cross is that which when confronted by man, even whom I might call a man of faith (whom you might call a man of religion) informs him his understanding is not yet complete, and which, in many circumstances, may be a total rebuke to all his previous assumptions. (and work)
> Indeed, it is.
> 
> If one were to speak of the "good faith" scientist, wouldn't that matter of _highly rewarded_ have to take on a clear definition (at least between you and I)?
> You may be many things to me, but are you a naif? I trust you understand the concept of contamination in any pursuit.
> You tell me you are a builder of sorts, given charge over some in your employ. You carry a level. What your men build represents you, at least to the extent you _identify_ with your business. What is created _in your name_. You accept certain things, reject others. (and you have mouths to feed, too).
> 
> You know the difference, I trust, in your own estimation of _good_, good _enough_, and not acceptable.
> But do you always account for parallax when looking at that bubble? I am confident you at least make an earnest attempt to set your eyes perpendicular to its axis. But regardless, we both know you do not send your level out each hour to have it checked for its own trueness.
> 
> I would not call you a sloppy worker, nor an incompetent boss, but that, really is immaterial. As boss, you have every right to conduct yourself in your own business as you see fit.
> 
> And just as I would only be presumptuous to try to hold you to a standard of all the things I could possibly prescribe necessary to a "perfect" structure built in your name (cause it ain't my name on the letterhead)...so it is, all will be shown how we have built.
> 
> But you would also be remiss to imagine (as I surely would be of you) that the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is less open to reproof, rebuke, total destruction of "his work" when found unfit, and outright demand to leave the job site when not rightly discharging his duty to his boss.
> 
> The cross gives him permission to work, as eyes, ears and hands and mind might to a scientist...but it also is the mechanism that reminds him, no matter what you have seen, done, imagined, or built, it can all, at any moment be displayed as far from perfect as the blind cobblers work. He lives with this, because the cross has also delivered him to a place where he knows he is son, and not employee. And even, no especially, when he finds he has been "all wrong" about everything...it's really been made, alright.
> 
> No man "wants" to suffer loss anymore than he wants to miss reward. And this very thing is accounted for perfectly in the cross.



Are you saying that the cross, meaning, Christ's crucifixion and by extension the Gospel is like a level?  Ok.  Let's work with that analogy.  A few things that you say stand out to me as points of interest.  Firstly:

_"The cross is the correcting "mechanism".
The cross is that which when confronted by man, even whom I might call a man of faith (whom you might call a man of religion) informs him his understanding is not yet complete,"_

Are you saying that you don't know how the level works or that you don't know how to use it?

Then where you say:

_"But regardless, we both know you do not send your level out each hour to have it checked for its own trueness."_

Which is interesting because not too long ago my helper was installing cabinets.  From across the room I could see that they weren't level.  He put the level on it it the bubble was exactly in the middle.  I got another level and it showed the error; 1/8 inch off in 6ft.  Sometimes you have a bad tool and if the writings of the Bible give any measure of moral "plumbness" then it should be clear that the tool is very, very broken.  You talk about the work of Christ a lot and not so much about scripture.  Is it because you see the same errors in scripture that I do?  

The story of Christ's life is for the most part a good example of how to live a moral life and everyone can benefit from its example.  But the fable of the resurrection taints Jesus' good works.  It would be like me telling a homeowner that the level works because of Fairy Dust.  He may not care that I think that as long as his walls are plumb and the counter tops are level.  But he might see my belief as a flaw in my character and be concerned about what other weirdness I might be harboring in my mind.  It's a dead on analogy.  The difference is that the resurrection is given a pass for historical and traditional reasons.  Fairy Dust doesn't get the same latitude but it would if there were enough people that believed it.  That still wouldn't make it true.

_"He lives with this, because the cross has also delivered him to a place where he knows he is son, and not an employee. And even, no especially, when he finds he has been "all wrong" about everything...it's really been made, alright.

No man "wants" to suffer loss anymore than he wants to miss reward. And this very thing is accounted for perfectly in the cross."_

This part is mysticism and unnecessary.  Whatever belief in this provides you psychologically or emotionally can be had by rational means.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> Are you saying that the cross, meaning, Christs crucifixion and by extension the Gospel is like a level?  Ok.  Let's work with that analogy.  A few things that you say stand out to me as points of interest.  Firstly:
> 
> _"The cross is the correcting "mechanism".
> The cross is that which when confronted by man, even whom I might call a man of faith (whom you might call a man of religion) informs him his understanding is not yet complete,"_
> 
> Are you saying that you don't know how the level works or that you don't know how to use it?
> 
> Then where you say:
> 
> _"But regardless, we both know you do not send your level out each hour to have it checked for its own trueness."_
> 
> Which is interesting because not too long ago my helper was installing cabinets.  From across the room I could see that they weren't level.  He put the level on it it the bubble was exactly in the middle.  I got another level and it showed the error; 1/8 inch off in 6ft.  Sometimes you have a bad tool and if the writings of the Bible give any measure of moral "plumbness" then it should be clear that the tool is very, very broken.  You talk about the work of Christ a lot and not so much about scripture.  Is it because you see the same errors in scripture that I do?
> 
> The story of Christ's life is for the most part a good example of how to live a moral life and everyone can benefit from its example.  But the the fable of the resurrection taints Jesus' good works.  It would be like me telling a homeowner that the level works because of Fairy Dust.  He may not care that I think that as long as his walls are plumb and the counter tops are level.  But he might see my belief as a flaw in my character and be concerned with what other weirdness I might be harboring in my mind.  It's a dead on analogy.  The difference is that the resurrection is given a pass for historical and traditional reasons.  Fairy Dust doesn't get the same latitude but it would if there were enough people that believed it.  That still wouldn't make it true.
> 
> _"He lives with this, because the cross has also delivered him to a place where he knows he is son, and not an employee. And even, no especially, when he finds he has been "all wrong" about everything...it's really been made, alright.
> 
> No man "wants" to suffer loss anymore than he wants to miss reward. And this very thing is accounted for perfectly in the cross."_
> 
> This part is mysticism and unnecessary.  Whatever belief in this provides you psychologically or emotionally can be had by rational means.


Good post


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Good post



I'm so stoked.  Isreal and I are having a conversation without having to cut through all the prose!!!


----------



## EverGreen1231

ambush80 said:


> I'm so stoked.  Isreal and I are having a conversation without having to cut through all the prose!!!



I always found the 'prose' enjoyable. It's says so much with so little. Personal preference, I suppose.


----------



## ambush80

EverGreen1231 said:


> I always found the 'prose' enjoyable. It's says so much with so little. Personal preference, I suppose.



Really?  Maybe I'm just not good at divining the meanings of what he's saying.   

I'm an artist so I appreciate how expressing something in that kind of way allows for many concepts to be expressed simultaneously but it's a result of being vague.  It allows people to bring their own interpretation to bear.  That's not the kind of conversation we're often trying to cultivate in these discussions.  Often a yes or no answer will do.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

Maybe it's time for me to come out of the closet and admit I'm a believer in the Messiah and a Physicist.


----------



## 660griz

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Maybe it's time for me to come out of the closet and admit I'm a believer in the Messiah and a Physicist.



Well, I believe in physicist too.


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Maybe it's time for me to come out of the closet and admit I'm a believer in the Messiah and a Physicist.



There are some.  Are you familiar with Ian Hutchinson?  Have you ever seen this debate?  It would be awesome if you watched it and we could talk about it.


----------



## ambush80

This one, too.


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Maybe it's time for me to come out of the closet and admit I'm a believer in the Messiah and a Physicist.




And welcome to the discussion!!!!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

I'm not a fan of D'Souza or Krauss.  

Krauss's bad science is described well enough in this article:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/



> He [Krauss] is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.
> 
> Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.



Also, if you read the article closely and follow some of Krauss's other work, it is clear that his claim that " no real physicist has voiced objections to his book" is a circular argument, because he refuses to accept anyone who objects to his book as a "real physicist" regardless of PhDs and publication records.  That kind of duplicity is not useful in public discourse or policy debates.

This National Review article also describes some of the issues why I think Krauss is a very poor spokesman for science:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423851/portrait-fanatic-kevin-d-williamson


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I'm not a fan of D'Souza or Krauss.
> 
> Krauss's bad science is described well enough in this article:
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you read the article closely and follow some of Krauss's other work, it is clear that his claim that " no real physicist has voiced objections to his book" is a circular argument, because he refuses to accept anyone who objects to his book as a "real physicist" regardless of PhDs and publication records.  That kind of duplicity is not useful in public discourse or policy debates.
> 
> This National Review article also describes some of the issues why I think Krauss is a very poor spokesman for science:
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423851/portrait-fanatic-kevin-d-williamson



Theoretical Physics.

I don't really understand much of it.  I struggled mightily through Max Tegmark's book  _Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality_ even though I could tell that he dumbed it down as much as he could for the average reader.  I understood enough of it as well as theories that Krauss puts forth to know that they aren't testable yet.  Both of them often make a point to say that.  

I don't particularly like how physicists and other scientists bring up their atheism (or theism) in the public realm gratuitously. Much in the same was I don't like how people thank Jesus at the Grammy's.   I do understand that they are sometimes engaging in conversations in which faith versus reason is the subject of the debate and in those instances they can justifiably point to their research as a evidence for their position.  There's a big enough section of the public that wants to hear what they have to say.  As public figures they and their thought are subject to public scrutiny.  I'm certain they welcome it.  That's one of the hallmarks of the scientific method, the _desire_ to have one's findings challenged.

A point that I would like to bring up about the Williamson piece is how he is pointing a finger at Krauss for making judgements and in the opening paragraph he makes personal judgements of his own.

_the Bible-thumping born-again Christian fanatic is relatively low on the list of unbearables. But for my money, the militant atheist takes the prize in the oh-for-pity’s-sake-give-it-a-rest-already sweepstakes._

I understand that it's an opinion piece.....attacking someone with an opinion.  

If you don't mind me asking, what field of Physics do you engage in?  Do you find support for your faith in your understanding of physics?


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

ambush80 said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what field of Physics do you engage in?


Early in my career: astrophysics, atomic physics, and quantum chaos.  Later: Blast physics, physics of brain injuries, and ballistics.





ambush80 said:


> Do you find support for your faith in your understanding of physics?



Yes.  See: https://biblicaltheologyofscience.w...1/faith-and-prayer-in-the-pursuit-of-science/

for further discussion.


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Early in my career: astrophysics, atomic physics, and quantum chaos.  Later: Blast physics, physics of brain injuries, and ballistics.
> 
> Yes.  See: https://biblicaltheologyofscience.w...1/faith-and-prayer-in-the-pursuit-of-science/
> 
> for further discussion.




Thanks for sharing that link.  My initial response was to post links to studies that show that prayer works as well as placebos which is to say, it does and they do.  It will be hard to argue from either side that the "mechanical" differences between how prayer and placebos work are either the same or different.  The same could be said for the healing power of crystals, Druid incantations or healing wind chimes.  The evidence leads me to believe that there is something other than the acts of invocation at work, particularly in the positive effects of placebo use.  

Why does prayer never re-grow limbs?

From the article:

_"God answers prayer with faith and clarity. God himself rarely puts challenges in front of his people that can be simply met with mere human strength."_

To the faith and clarity part, I would like to see some empirical data to support this.  Heck, I'd even consider some good testimonial at this point.  To the challenges put forth by God, I would offer Polio as an example of how mere human strength overcame one of His challenges.  On a more metaphysical level, the subject of "God's challenges" will ultimately bring the discussion to the problem of suffering.  I can project a faith response and it indeed answers the problem completely.  "His ways are not our ways.  Nothing He does is bad.  He has a righteous plan for Anencephaly".  It just doesn't do it for me. And that's what it really comes down to, a choice of how to view the world based on what?


----------



## ambush80

At 56:30



Krauss:

"Get people so excited about reality that they forget about the myths."

Discuss.


----------



## ambush80

There's an excellent question at 1:04:56 and an excellent answer.


----------



## ambush80

Wright starting at 1:07:49 gives an awesome rationale for prayer and meditation.  

"Judge people by their behavior and not by their beliefs and that's enough."

At 1:11:50

"Maybe all it is [theology] is a graceful transition to an ultimately atheistic world, I don't know."


----------



## Artfuldodger

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Early in my career: astrophysics, atomic physics, and quantum chaos.  Later: Blast physics, physics of brain injuries, and ballistics.
> 
> Yes.  See: https://biblicaltheologyofscience.w...1/faith-and-prayer-in-the-pursuit-of-science/
> 
> for further discussion.



What is your beliefs on how prayer works with free will and or predestination?
Why does God present these challenges to us and then with prayer, helps us overcome them? 
God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability.

Proverbs16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. 

Psalm 37:23
The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way;

Proverbs 19:21  
Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. 

Also are all of life's challenges from God?

James 1:13 
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Wright starting at 1:07:49 gives an awesome rationale for prayer and meditation.
> 
> "Judge people by their behavior and not by their beliefs and that's enough."
> 
> At 1:11:50
> 
> "Maybe all it is [theology] is a graceful transition to an ultimately atheistic world, I don't know."



Within Christianity we learn that all of us are evil. Without Jesus even the so called good will suffer. We are told not to judge others by their evil works because we are just as guilty. 
Christianity goes back and forth between works and grace. Between good and evil. In some scriptures the evil will receive wrath. In other scriptures only the un-saved will receive wrath. 
Maybe if we are good we'll live forever but if we are bad we'll die when we die.
Basically though Christianity doesn't have much to do with good works or bad works yet Christians get really hung up on good and evil.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Within Christianity we learn that all of us are evil. Without Jesus even the so called good will suffer. We are told not to judge others by their works because we are just as guilty.
> Christianity goes back and forth between works and grace. Between good and evil. In some scriptures the evil will receive wrath. In other scriptures only the un-saved will receive wrath.
> Maybe if we are good we'll live forever but if we are bad we'll die when we die.
> Basically though Christianity doesn't have much to do with good works or bad works yet Christians get really hung up on good and evil.



Are you not interested in discussing your Limited Freewill theory with me anymore?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Are you not interested in discussing your Limited Freewill theory with me anymore?



I'm not sure I have even limited free will anymore. I'm back to square one. I'm still open to discussing it with you. I'm just looking for Drummer Boys' prospective as well.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

My goal of the blog and posting here is more to encourage people of faith.  I don't like to spend too much time going down every intellectual rabbit trail of questioning from skeptics who have little inclination to change their beliefs or actions.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure I have even limited free will anymore. I'm back to square one. I'm still open to discussing it with you. I'm just looking for Drummer Boys' prospective as well.



I'm not sure the Bible gives a definitive answer to the free will question in the manner it is commonly framed in modern discourse.

My interest is more in encouraging people of faith to work out their salvation with fear and trembling in a way that is active and engaged both with prayer and scripture rather than answering every question the mind can devise.

Note that Yahweh made no attempt to answer all of Job's questions.  Job was satisfied with God speaking to him out of the storm.  God often answers the more important questions of the human heart in a manner where we realize the mental questions are not nearly as important as we thought they were.

3 Then Job answered the Lord:

4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
    I put my hand over my mouth.
5 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
    twice, but I will say no more.”
6 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 “Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me."

If I can have Job's faith and Job's standing with God, that would be enough without needed answers for all my mental questions.

25 I know that my redeemer lives,
    and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my flesh has been destroyed,
    yet with my eyes I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
    with my own eyes—I, and not another.
    How my heart yearns within me!


----------



## bullethead

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> My goal of the blog and posting here is more to encourage people of faith.  I don't like to spend too much time going down every intellectual rabbit trail of questioning from skeptics who have little inclination to change their beliefs or actions.


This is the only forum that is specifically designed as  a place to have atheists, agnostics and apoligetics together in one spot where they get the chance to go down those intellectual rabbit holes.
Faith encouragement is a few floors up.


----------



## Artfuldodger

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I'm not sure the Bible gives a definitive answer to the free will question in the manner it is commonly framed in modern discourse.
> 
> My interest is more in encouraging people of faith to work out their salvation with fear and trembling in a way that is active and engaged both with prayer and scripture rather than answering every question the mind can devise.



Then it is OK to "let the mystery be?" 
Another way of saying it is "if it is, it is and if it's not, it's not.
So man must go chugging along hoping God calls so that he can answer. From there he must hope his election offers guidance/control from the Creator to overcome the struggles the Creator places in front of him.

How does one "work out their salvation with fear & trembling?" Maybe that's a mystery too.

I guess when it comes down to it none of the questions are important;
Trinity vs Oneness
Free will vs Election/predestination
Works vs grace
Preterism vs Futurism
Everlasting death vs eternal punishment
Hope vs assurance
Repentance of changing one's mind from believing they can quit sinning to repentance from sin?

I'd say most aren't that important except the last one. Once we figure out the right repentance, Jesus becomes our salvation from said sin.
We can learn as much knowledge as God gives us. Beyond that we should just let the mystery be. We don't have to decide if Jesus is God or if Jesus has already returned. Those are just mysteries we should let be.

If we gain knowledge in the wrong direction or from the wrong source then who do we blame?


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> My goal of the blog and posting here is more to encourage people of faith.  I don't like to spend too much time going down every intellectual rabbit trail of questioning from skeptics who have little inclination to change their beliefs or actions.



Skeptics believe things are true.  They just need a lot of evidence.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

ambush80 said:


> Skeptics believe things are true.  They just need a lot of evidence.



When it comes to Scripture, the evidence begins with the Holy Spirit convicting you and speaking into your heart that the testimony of Scripture is true.  Faith is a miracle of the heart brought about by the Holy Spirit.  At some point, many will have the testimony of many answered prayers and God's loving provision in ways that are easier to accept as supernatural than as natural.  

The evidence of the Holy Spirit's testimony comes about more from Scripture than by looking for other empirical evidence.  As Scripture says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."  Looking for humans to provide the evidence is less likely to work.  We can provide corroborating testimony that Scripture is true, but if you can't or won't have ears to hear the Holy Spirit's testimony that Scripture is true, there's not much more people of faith can do to convince you.


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> When it comes to Scripture, the evidence begins with the Holy Spirit convicting you and speaking into your heart that the testimony of Scripture is true.  Faith is a miracle of the heart brought about by the Holy Spirit.  At some point, many will have the testimony of many answered prayers and God's loving provision in ways that are easier to accept as supernatural than as natural.
> 
> The evidence of the Holy Spirit's testimony comes about more from Scripture than by looking for other empirical evidence.  As Scripture says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."  Looking for humans to provide the evidence is less likely to work.  We can provide corroborating testimony that Scripture is true, but if you can't or won't have ears to hear the Holy Spirit's testimony that Scripture is true, there's not much more people of faith can do to convince you.



I understand.  To believe you first have to believe.

Do you think apologetic discourse is useless?  What do you make of the call to evangelism?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I understand.  To believe you first have to believe.
> 
> Do you think apologetic discourse is useless?  What do you make of the call to evangelism?



Surely that is all that may be seen at a "time."
But one may discover another has given his faith for you, to you...as gift. And one may discover it is not "his own" faith, faithfulnes, sincerity, strivings, or lack thereof ...that causes him to believe...and be saved.
Jesus my friend, is greater than both our hearts.

Because I live, you shall live, also.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Surely that is all that may be seen at a "time."
> But one may discover another has given his faith for you, to you...as gift. And one may discover it is not "his own" faith, faithfulnes, sincerity, strivings, or lack thereof ...that causes him to believe...and be saved.
> Jesus my friend, is greater than both our hearts.
> 
> Because I live, you shall live, also.



I don't hear Jesus' voice in my head like you claim to but I'm sure I could if I wanted to.  I only hear my own voice.  Sometimes it sounds like Foghorn Leghorn.  Or is it Foghorn Leghorn........?


----------



## bullethead

The believers are way more interesting to me than the belief.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> The believers are way more interesting to me than the belief.



That is absolutely true.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> That is absolutely true.



Ambush, I gotta ask (after a year of wondering),what is the deal with your avatar picture?


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I don't hear Jesus' voice in my head like you claim to but I'm sure I could if I wanted to.  I only hear my own voice.  Sometimes it sounds like Foghorn Leghorn.  Or is it Foghorn Leghorn........?


You must be onto something there because I KNOW I hear the voice of Mr. Leghorn but it is usually when I am reading scripture quotes posted in here.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Ambush, I gotta ask (after a year of wondering),what is the deal with your avatar picture?



It's just something from the internet.


----------



## 660griz

Just take comfort in the fact that your religion, out of all the religions, has a .025% of being right. 

Soon, Islam and Christianity will be tied for first place among the most members. I fill we are in for hades on earth. Yea religion!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

ambush80 said:


> I understand.  To believe you first have to believe.
> 
> Do you think apologetic discourse is useless?  What do you make of the call to evangelism?



One at least needs to be open to belief.

Apologetic discourse is not useless.  I prefer an approach that speaks to the heart more than the mind and that does not stray far from Scripture.  

Of course, there is a call to evangelism.  But the examples of Scripture do not stray far from Scripture.  Evangelists in Scripture also tend to move along once a basic message has been presented to a certain audience.  I can't think of any examples where evangelists in Scripture kept working the same crowd for many days once only skeptics were left.

At some point, Jesus just pointed them to Scripture and moved along ...


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You must be onto something there because I KNOW I hear the voice of Mr. Leghorn but it is usually when I am reading scripture quotes posted in here.


You may surmise...some of us know that.
We well understand you view the scriptures as self affirming in the same sense some believers have come to view some men when they tell you "I am being completely honest". Or the oft heard "May I be honest with you?" With its obvious implication of what a one has been prior.
To you the scriptures are comical, and men appraised comical of you may be found at times _using them_.
We needn't be _with you_ physically to discern the eyes glazing over, or rolling in disdain. Or...being heard as Foghorn Leghorn.

The "I've heard it all before" syndrome, to which even believers are not immune. To say I am unlike you in that respect would be a lie. I too, live often in the place of "know it all"...till the unanticipated nor foreseen comes upon me. For you, or any, to infer this must mean a calamity would be wrong. For I have seen the most gracious of outpouring also, in that place. 

To you perhaps, this is no more than "the luck of the draw"...completely independent or better, non-dependent upon any man's relative or self appraised position to what he may call truth. But that every man is quite sure "something is happening to me" is never in doubt. That there is a "me", and indeed, things are happening, witnessed of that "me".

How we judge the happenings remains completely unknown to us, though we are most eager to give reasons, especially to ourselves...we believe we know why we are the way...we are. But the filter of judgment does not explain its reason for being. We just know it is operational, and the "we" subject to it, confer always the best to it. "It's because I am smart(er), seen more, read more, been more places, a better person, had more "real" experience, "Christian", worked harder, a Bible believer, or intellectual immune, etc." In every way...we are slaves to the filter of our own judgments. And most often happy to be so. If we attribute "nice things to it"...we trust it will respond in kind...we "get" a something in affirmation...

Talk about _self affirming!_
Rarely it seems, and always impossible it seems (_to me_), is a man reduced to "I am just me".
I cannot add one thing to that. 
That Jesus is Lord in my confession adds not one thing to that "me", but he is all and only the one to ever shown me...it's ok for me to be. Just me. What once seemed impossible...is. A man can just...be.

"Consider the sparrows..." he told me.
And then he did something...


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> One at least needs to be open to belief.
> 
> Apologetic discourse is not useless.  I prefer an approach that speaks to the heart more than the mind and that does not stray far from Scripture.
> 
> Of course, there is a call to evangelism.  But the examples of Scripture do not stray far from Scripture.  Evangelists in Scripture also tend to move along once a basic message has been presented to a certain audience.  I can't think of any examples where evangelists in Scripture kept working the same crowd for many days once only skeptics were left.
> 
> At some point, Jesus just pointed them to Scripture and moved along ...




I understand.  That's scriptural.

_King James Bible
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet._

_
King James Bible
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you._

_Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him._

I find that believers who continue to engage in dialogue with unbelievers are actually working through their own doubts or: 

_King James Bible
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend._


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> You may surmise...some of us know that.
> We well understand you view the scriptures as self affirming in the same sense some believers have come to view some men when they tell you "I am being completely honest". Or the oft heard "May I be honest with you?" With its obvious implication of what a one has been prior.
> To you the scriptures are comical, and men appraised comical of you may be found at times _using them_.
> We needn't be _with you_ physically to discern the eyes glazing over, or rolling in disdain. Or...being heard as Foghorn Leghorn.
> 
> The "I've heard it all before" syndrome, to which even believers are not immune. To say I am unlike you in that respect would be a lie. I too, live often in the place of "know it all"...till the unanticipated nor foreseen comes upon me. For you, or any, to infer this must mean a calamity would be wrong. For I have seen the most gracious of outpouring also, in that place.
> 
> To you perhaps, this is no more than "the luck of the draw"...completely independent or better, non-dependent upon any man's relative or self appraised position to what he may call truth. But that every man is quite sure "something is happening to me" is never in doubt. That there is a "me", and indeed, things are happening, witnessed of that "me".
> 
> How we judge the happenings remains completely unknown to us, though we are most eager to give reasons, especially to ourselves...we believe we know why we are the way...we are. But the filter of judgment does not explain its reason for being. We just know it is operational, and the "we" subject to it, confer always the best to it. "It's because I am smart(er), seen more, read more, been more places, a better person, had more "real" experience, "Christian", worked harder, a Bible believer, or intellectual immune, etc." In every way...we are slaves to the filter of our own judgments. And most often happy to be so. If we attribute "nice things to it"...we trust it will respond in kind...we "get" a something in affirmation...
> 
> Talk about _self affirming!_
> Rarely it seems, and always impossible it seems (_to me_), is a man reduced to "I am just me".
> I cannot add one thing to that.
> That Jesus is Lord in my confession adds not one thing to that "me", but he is all and only the one to ever shown me...it's ok for me to be. Just me. What once seemed impossible...is. A man can just...be.
> 
> "Consider the sparrows..." he told me.
> And then he did something...


I see the scriptures for what they are ,but comical is not the word. Comical would describe the people that use scripture, and the voice that pops into my head as I read their scripture post or hear them recite it is of Foghorn. I think it is because they seem to me to be two characters that are blowing off steam that is recited from a script and neither wrote or actually understand it but put on a good show for the audience.
In both cases it somewhat entertaining because it sounds good but just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I see the scriptures for what they are ,but comical is not the word. Comical would describe the people that use scripture, and the voice that pops into my head as I read their scripture post or hear them recite it is of Foghorn. I think it is because they seem to me to be two characters that are blowing off steam that is recited from a script and neither wrote or actually understand it but put on a good show for the audience.
> In both cases it somewhat entertaining because it sounds good but just doesn't make sense.




Foghorn Leghorn makes perfect sense!!!


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I see the scriptures for what they are ,but comical is not the word. Comical would describe the people that use scripture, and the voice that pops into my head as I read their scripture post or hear them recite it is of Foghorn. I think it is because they seem to me to be two characters that are blowing off steam that is recited from a script and neither wrote or actually understand it but put on a good show for the audience.
> In both cases it somewhat entertaining because it sounds good but just doesn't make sense.


OK...then what is in the seeing of them _for what they are_, that they are?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> In both cases it somewhat entertaining because it sounds good but just doesn't make sense.



Like "dominion over every living thing that moveth", except those microorganisms they didn't know about. There are still kicking our be-hinds.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> OK...then what is in the seeing of them _for what they are_, that they are?


The collection of anonymous works of men trying to tell their spiritual history as they became a nation. They are both epic and human. The intelligence and embellishments make them epic and the inaccuracies and plagiarism show their human side. They, like all the religious tales told world wide, are no more or no less accurate than the next, but I appreciate the efforts it took to write them and gather them together. The collection is very entertaining.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Like "dominion over every living thing that moveth", except those microorganisms they didn't know about. There are still kicking our be-hinds.


That is definitely one of many.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

660griz said:


> Like "dominion over every living thing that moveth", except those microorganisms they didn't know about. There are still kicking our be-hinds.



You don't think the fall of man would have anything to do with that?

Why would man maintain the same level of dominion if he didn't follow the instructions?


----------



## 660griz

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> You don't think the fall of man would have anything to do with that?


 No.



> Why would man maintain the same level of dominion if he didn't follow the instructions?



From a Christian research website:
"When God created the first man and woman, He told them to exercise "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28). This divine stewardship of mankind over the animal kingdom, under its Creator, involves many responsibilities, and has never been withdrawn."


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> You don't think the fall of man would have anything to do with that?
> 
> Why would man maintain the same level of dominion if he didn't follow the instructions?



The Fall of Man is a weird catch all that contradicts God's sovereignty and God's omniscience, as are all the other doings of Satan.  Was God surprised that Eve succumbed to Satan's trickery?  Could God have stopped Satan from tricking Eve but decided to just watch?  Can Satan do anything without God's allowance?  And when you consider an act of a subjugated agent and combine God's allowance with His omniscience, is it too far a stretch to call that God's plan?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Interesting concept that man lost his dominion over the other plants & animals at the "fall."


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting concept that man lost his dominion over the other plants & animals at the "fall."




But what is the scriptural basis of such a belief?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> But what is the scriptural basis of such a belief?



Look at James 3:7-8

 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Look at James 3:7-8
> 
> For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
> But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.


Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the fall of man and losing his dominion over the living things.

Your example refutes the fall of man claim.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the fall of man and losing his dominion over the living things.
> 
> Your example refutes the fall of man claim.



Exactly the point.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Exactly the point.



I'm this corner we have Welder in the blue trunks  sporting a James 3: 7-8 inch reach.

In the other corner we have LDB in the red trunks sporting a Genesis 3: 1-24 inch reach.

Touch gloves , Protect yourselves at all times, Ding Ding.......


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think that James 3:7-8 is showing that man has the capacity to tame animals but not the tongue of man. I don't think it has anything to do with man's dominion over beasts and whether it was lost at the fall.
What LittleDrummerBoy is stating that man lost his dominion at the fall. Before the fall the earth was a different environment.
Sharks and Lions didn't eat man.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I think that James 3:7-8 is showing that man has the capacity to tame animals but not the tongue of man. I don't think it has anything to do with man's dominion over beasts and whether it was lost at the fall.
> What LittleDrummerBoy is stating that man lost his dominion at the fall. Before the fall the earth was a different environment.
> Sharks and Lions didn't eat man.



What did lions eat before the Fall of Man?  Same thing that they ate on the Ark?  Miracle Grow?

Hint: The answer is "I don't care."


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> I think that James 3:7-8 is showing that man has the capacity to tame animals but not the tongue of man. I don't think it has anything to do with man's dominion over beasts and whether it was lost at the fall.
> What LittleDrummerBoy is stating that man lost his dominion at the fall. Before the fall the earth was a different environment.
> Sharks and Lions didn't eat man.



But, God said to 'subdue'. What would you need to subdue something that was passive anyway?

Genesis 1:28: “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth‘” (NRSV).


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I'm this corner we have Welder in the blue trunks  sporting a James 3: 7-8 inch reach.
> 
> In the other corner we have LDB in the red trunks sporting a Genesis 3: 1-24 inch reach.
> 
> Touch gloves , Protect yourselves at all times, Ding Ding.......



I forfeit.
He's my brother. I could never take a swing at my brother.He loves Jesus.

(A hater of Jesus...now that's a different situation...would need to draw a sword then)


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I forfeit.
> He's my brother. I could never take a swing at my brother.He loves Jesus.
> 
> (A hater of Jesus...now that's a different situation...would need to draw a sword then)


Okaaaaaaaay
So what scripture is correct?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Okaaaaaaaay
> So what scripture is correct?



All scripture is correct.

Man was commanded to have dominion over those things,and even after he was cursed and driven out of Eden,the commandment was not lifted.

LDB said the dominion would not be at the same level after the fall and I agree.Everything would require much more labor and sweat and difficulty,unlike before.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> All scripture is correct.
> 
> Man was commanded to have dominion over those things,and even after he was cursed and driven out of Eden,the commandment was not lifted.
> 
> LDB said the dominion would not be at the same level after the fall and I agree.Everything would require much more labor and sweat and difficulty,unlike before.



You both are interpreting it in the way that you prefer.  Do you not see that?  Two wicked, unworthy, carnal men trying to claim righteous understanding of God's revelation.  When does it end?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Pro verse that dominion was lost by Adam but regained after the Flood;

Genesis 9:2
All the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky, all the small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the fish in the sea will look on you with fear and terror. I have placed them in your power.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Pro verse that dominion was lost by Adam but regained after the Flood;
> 
> Genesis 9:2
> All the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky, all the small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the fish in the sea will look on you with fear and terror. I have placed them in your power.



What causes you to believe the dominion was ever lost.I missed that part.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> You both are interpreting it in the way that you prefer.  Do you not see that?  Two wicked, unworthy, carnal men trying to claim righteous understanding of God's revelation.  When does it end?





welderguy said:


> What causes you to believe the dominion was ever lost.I missed that part.



Again, where does it end?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> What causes you to believe the dominion was ever lost.I missed that part.



I'm not sure as losing dominion at the fall is a new concept to me as I stated earlier. Now I'm trying to figure out everything Adam might have lost at the Fall and what all Jesus regained that Adam lost.
How much of God's image did Adam lose?
Anyway to answer your last question, starting in Genesis 9:1 God starts talking to Noah and his sons like they were Adam starting over. He gives the command to be fruitful and multiply "again." 
Then he "again" gives them power over the animals. 
If God is giving Noah and his sons power over the animals, it must have been lost.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Could it be there was no death before the Fall, therefore man ate herb.
After the fall man was commanded to grow herb. We do know that Cain grew herb and Abel had flocks of lambs.

Again, I'm not sure when or how much dominion was lost and or gained by Adam or Noah. In Genesis 9 it almost sounds like God is giving Noah and his sons permission to eat and kill animals.
They can eat only animals that have been killed. They couldn't eat live animals such as oysters.
Why this command/permission/power if the dominion was still in affect?
Maybe it was temporary while on the Ark and such was being fruitful. To keep from eating up the animals and having too many babies on the Ark.


----------



## welderguy

6





ambush80 said:


> Again, where does it end?



It ends when you turn your computer off.

Besides,you were the potstirrer that asked what the scriptural basis was in post #65


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

welderguy said:


> All scripture is correct.
> 
> Man was commanded to have dominion over those things,and even after he was cursed and driven out of Eden,the commandment was not lifted.
> 
> LDB said the dominion would not be at the same level after the fall and I agree.Everything would require much more labor and sweat and difficulty,unlike before.



That is my point.

Dominion still exists after the fall, as is evident in Genesis 9.  But the introduction of death and bondage to decay that resulted from the fall makes everything harder.

Scripture says, "Death reigned from the time of Adam ..."

Before the fall, man was not dealing with death and bondage to decay.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Pro verse that dominion was lost by Adam but regained after the Flood;
> 
> Genesis 9:2
> All the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky, all the small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the fish in the sea will look on you with fear and terror. I have placed them in your power.


Off topic a bit but it's interesting that we now know that a classic early symptom of future serial killers etc is the abuse of animals. Causing the animals fear and terror seems to fill some sick, twisted desire.
If you already have dominion/power over them why the need for fear and terror?


----------



## ambush80

So, let me get this right.  Carnal men can understand and interpret scripture and thus God's intentions, or God's ways mysterious and un-imagineable?  Which is is it?  You can understand Him sometimes but other times not?  And how would you know?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Off topic a bit but it's interesting that we now know that a classic early symptom of future serial killers etc is the abuse of animals. Causing the animals fear and terror seems to fill some sick, twisted desire.
> If you already have dominion/power over them why the need for fear and terror?



WALT !! you're alive! I thought you fell off the face of the earth.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> So, let me get this right.  Carnal men can understand and interpret scripture and thus God's intentions, or God's ways mysterious and un-imagineable?  Which is is it?  You can understand Him sometimes but other times not?  And how would you know?


.

Carnal men cannot.But those that are led by the Spirit.

Rom.8:5-6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> .
> 
> Carnal men cannot.But those that are led by the Spirit.
> 
> Rom.8:5-6
> 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
> 
> 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.



If you guys are all led by the spirit, why don't you agree with each other?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> If you guys are all led by the spirit, why don't you agree with each other?



Even men who are led by the Spirit have disagreements about things.But they agree on the fact that there is one true and living God.The reason they agree on this is because it is taught by the Spirit that dwells within them, not man.

After the Spirit takes up abode in someone,they are a disciple(student) of the things of God. We are always learning,never reaching  point where we have learned it all.Therefore, there are different levels of spiritual maturity.There are also differing gifts among the disciples.We each have strong points and weak points.We need each other for guidance and correction to point out,according to the scriptures,where we may not fully understand.
You guys see it as fighting or bickering,but more times than not I believe its more like labors of love.

That's the way I see it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Even men who are led by the Spirit have disagreements about things.But they agree on the fact that there is one true and living God.The reason they agree on this is because it is taught by the Spirit that dwells within them, not man.
> 
> After the Spirit takes up abode in someone,they are a disciple(student) of the things of God. We are always learning,never reaching  point where we have learned it all.Therefore, there are different levels of spiritual maturity.There are also differing gifts among the disciples.We each have strong points and weak points.We need each other for guidance and correction to point out,according to the scriptures,where we may not fully understand.
> You guys see it as fighting or bickering,but more times than not I believe its more like labors of love.
> 
> That's the way I see it.


Do you feel the same about the believers outside of Christianity thay are led by their gods and spirits?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Do you feel the same about the believers outside of Christianity thay are led by their gods and spirits?



No I do not and I should have specified more clearly.When I said "the one true and living God",that is the God of the bible,and Jesus,the Son of the living God.

Any religion that rejects these are false.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> No I do not and I should have specified more clearly.When I said "the one true and living God",that is the God of the bible,and Jesus,the Son of the living God.
> 
> Any religion that rejects these are false.



My Islamic neighbor said you are not only wrong but your religion is false.

He sounded more convincing than you and since the only requirements you need are claims without evidence I am gonna have to take his word for it.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> My Islamic neighbor said you are not only wrong but your religion is false.
> 
> He sounded more convincing than you and since the only requirements you need are claims without evidence I am gonna have to take his word for it.



Why am I not surprised by that?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Why am I not surprised by that?


I'm sure you will find the answer somewhere......


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I'm sure you will find the answer somewhere......



Why didn't you ask your neighbor for proof of his god?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Why didn't you ask your neighbor for proof of his god?


I have. But like you he cannot seem to get his god around for a formal introduction either.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Why didn't you ask your neighbor for proof of his god?


The odd part is he seems way less radical and has less excuses than most Christians I talk to.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> I have. But like you he cannot seem to get his god around for a formal introduction either.



You seem to be holding to a double standard then.
Did you pull out the ole foghorn leghorn tactic on him? That'll straighten him right out.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Even men who are led by the Spirit have disagreements about things.But they agree on the fact that there is one true and living God.The reason they agree on this is because it is taught by the Spirit that dwells within them, not man.
> 
> After the Spirit takes up abode in someone,they are a disciple(student) of the things of God. We are always learning,never reaching  point where we have learned it all.Therefore, there are different levels of spiritual maturity.There are also differing gifts among the disciples.We each have strong points and weak points.We need each other for guidance and correction to point out,according to the scriptures,where we may not fully understand.
> You guys see it as fighting or bickering,but more times than not I believe its more like labors of love.
> 
> That's the way I see it.



Universalists don't believe that.  They're Christians.

You think you've got a better grasp on what God wants or means than another Christian that disagrees with you.  You think He's talking to you for real and not to them.  What does that make you?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Universalists don't believe that.  They're Christians.
> 
> You think you've got a better grasp on what God wants or means than another Christian that disagrees with you.  You think He's talking to you for real and not to them.  What does that make you?



Go back to post 87 and notice the distinction.(hint: led by the Spirit)


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Go back to post 87 and notice the distinction.(hint: led by the Spirit)



I understand.  You think they are either mistaken or deceived but YOU are not.  

You're SOOOOOOO close to getting it.  You just can't seem to connect the dots.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> You seem to be holding to a double standard then.
> Did you pull out the ole foghorn leghorn tactic on him? That'll straighten him right out.


It's not a double standard because I do not believe him any more than I believe you or anyone else.
I said it to show you that your claims are not unique and every religious person thinks theirs is the "right" one and all others are false. Neither one of you believe the others claims for the same reasons yet you both say the same thing.

And yes, He and I have some very in depth conversations, Foghorn commentary included. You would be surprised at how much he ALMOST agrees with many points but his upbringing just won't let him fully agree.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> It's not a double standard because I do not believe him any more than I believe you or anyone else.
> I said it to show you that your claims are not unique and every religious person thinks theirs is the "right" one and all others are false. Neither one of you believe the others claims for the same reasons yet you both say the same thing.
> 
> And yes, He and I have some very in depth conversations, Foghorn commentary included. You would be surprised at how much he ALMOST agrees with many points but his upbringing just won't let him fully agree.




A-freakin'-men.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,

How do you think your behavior and attitude towards other people would change if you began to think that you just might be wrong about your God?  Not that you quit believing, just that you accepted the possibility that you might be wrong.  How do you think your life might change?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> How do you think your behavior and attitude towards other people would change if you began to think that you just might be wrong about your God?  Not that you quit believing, just that you accepted the possibility that you might be wrong.  How do you think your life might change?



I welcome your constructive criticism as far as my perceived behavior and attitude goes.Even though we don't believe the same,I still value you as a human being and also value your view of me,good or bad.And although I would never compromise on my faith, I am not above changing my ways if they are contrary to what's right.To sum up what Im trying to say, if Ive offended in any way, I invite your input.

Life's too short to waste even a moment without kindness.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

Asking a Christian to accept that they might be wrong about God being real is like asking anyone to accept that they do not have a mother.


----------



## Israel

Ambush, for me at least, asks a good question. God has most often (according to the working of my faith) shown me I am wrong about Him to the measure my understanding is incomplete.
I say "God is Love", believing it "convicted" of it, and surely exist according to the grace found there. But I would have to be a liar to say that in the exercise of my understanding of it, and the oft reproof that comes when I find how limited my understanding truly is, "I" am wrong. I say God is patient...and am also finding my understanding of patience less than complete.

Does that in any way diminish my faith that God is love, God is patient? Actually, it is always being proved by the very grace that shows me how much I have been allowed to be "wrong" about what is so right.

Now, in another place it could be taken as "so if you only know you're wrong...why don't you just stop being... unless you are merely using grace as a cover to continue in all your wrongness (sin)" But, God does not count my incomplete understanding as sin (grace)...if when reproved, I don't deny it...and extend the lesson to all others there..."

So, I find then the basis of my forgiveness, where mercy is revealed and supplied of Christ..."Forgive them Father, they know not what they do"....But, the moment I "step out" and take to myself..."I am right, all others wrong"...I exempt myself...from the mercy and find myself opposing God.


----------



## WaltL1

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Asking a Christian to accept that they might be wrong about God being real is like asking anyone to accept that they do not have a mother.



But there is a monumental difference between those two statements and are not "like" each other at all.
Agreed?
Why can't belief and honesty coincide?
" i believe with all my "heart", but am honest enough with myself to admit my personal belief is not a universal, proven fact and therefore I could be wrong".
If there is a perceived penalty for that it's time to start asking questions.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> But there is a monumental difference between those two statements and are not "like" each other at all.
> Agreed?
> Why can't belief and honesty coincide?
> " i believe with all my "heart", but am honest enough with myself to admit my personal belief is not a universal, proven fact and therefore I could be wrong".
> If there is a perceived penalty for that it's time to start asking questions.


Glad to see you back in the mix Walt. Great points.


----------



## ambush80

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Asking a Christian to accept that they might be wrong about God being real is like asking anyone to accept that they do not have a mother.



I went through a short phase when I wondered if my parents were really my parents.  I hoped that I was really the kidnapped son of rich parents who would find me and save me from middleclassness. Later I wondered if I was an alien or a robot or maybe my parents were aliens or robots.  

A simple DNA analysis could have answered my questions. Or could it............?

See, even then I formulated theories.  It was later that I learned how to test them.


----------



## bullethead

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Asking a Christian to accept that they might be wrong about God being real is like asking anyone to accept that they do not have a mother.


Would you care to explain how the two are the same?


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I went through a short phase when I wondered if my parents were really my parents.  I hoped that I was really the kidnapped son of rich parents who would find me and save me from middleclassness. Later I wondered if I was an alien or a robot or maybe my parents were aliens or robots.
> 
> A simple DNA analysis could have answered my questions. Or could it............?
> 
> See, even then I formulated theories.  It was later that I learned how to test them.



Test your theories...or your parents?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Test your theories...or your parents?


I learned how to test theories, even theories about my parents.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Would you care to explain how the two are the same?



I'm hoping Littledrummerboy will explain it better than I can,but I think he's alluding to the two forms of birth.The elect are born of water(from our mother's womb) and born of the Spirit(regeneration).

John 3:5
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm hoping Littledrummerboy will explain it better than I can,but I think he's alluding to the two forms of birth.The elect are born of water(from our mother's womb) and born of the Spirit(regeneration).
> 
> John 3:5
> "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."



Birth is a long detour to get back to the original statement.

A person put up for adoption at birth would not know their mother and yet have a legitimate physical bond. They share the same dna if nothing else. And that is much less than a person that is raised "normally".
You would have us believe a person's spiritual bond is as great but the reality is it exists nowhere except in the mind. And there is nothing wrong with that except every believer in every religion that worshiped every god has the same claim. There is no uniqueness that sets yours apart.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I learned how to test theories, even theories about my parents.



Oh...so it was you...too?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Oh...so it was you...too?


Huh?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Birth is a long detour to get back to the original statement.
> 
> A person put up for adoption at birth would not know their mother and yet have a legitimate physical bond. They share the same dna if nothing else. And that is much less than a person that is raised "normally".
> You would have us believe a person's spiritual bond is as great but the reality is it exists nowhere except in the mind. And there is nothing wrong with that except every believer in every religion that worshiped every god has the same claim. There is no uniqueness that sets yours apart.



The spiritual bond is much greater than the physical one.

How do I know? I've experienced both. Unless you have also,you'll just have to take my word for it.......or not.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Huh?


Did your theories lead anywhere?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The spiritual bond is much greater than the physical one.
> 
> How do I know? I've experienced both. Unless you have also,you'll just have to take my word for it.......or not.


The spiritual bond is much greater than the physical bond......unless the spiritual bond is with another god, then those people are full of bullsnorts.
You cannot fathom that every person with a spiritual bond makes the same claim same and it is the individuals that try to make those bonds unique in order to suit their personal needs.  I have no doubt it takes a special person to be a believer but I'd also bet if you were in another country you would be just as loyal to whatever  diety that was the popular flavor there too. Their gods do the exact same thing for them as yours does for you. They all have the exact same evidence as you do. 

Tell us how all the other believers religions are false and yours is not.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The spiritual bond is much greater than the physical one.
> 
> How do I know? I've experienced both. Unless you have also,you'll just have to take my word for it.......or not.



And for the record there was a time that I sounded just like you and then I realized my spiritual bond was with myself inside my own head. Since I ditched that nonsense I have never felt more in tune with life here and now instead of obsessing with death and whatever excuses I had to make in order to convince myself it wasn't gonna happen.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> The spiritual bond is much greater than the physical bond......unless the spiritual bond is with another god, then those people are full of bullsnorts.



I wouldn't have worded it quite like that but yes, you are correct.



bullethead said:


> Tell us how all the other believers religions are false and yours is not.



Ive said it many many times before,but apparently you want to hear it again. Any religion that denies that Jesus is the Son of God, is false.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> And for the record there was a time that I sounded just like you and then I realized my spiritual bond was with myself inside my own head. Since I ditched that nonsense I have never felt more in tune with life here and now instead of obsessing with death and whatever excuses I had to make in order to convince myself it wasn't gonna happen.



I'm glad that you are more in tune with life now, but I must ask, how do you feel about when this life is over? Do you just kinda put that out of your mind and not think about it?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I wouldn't have worded it quite like that but yes, you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Ive said it many many times before,but apparently you want to hear it again. Any religion that denies that Jesus is the Son of God, is false.


Oh I hear it. You just are not credible enough to convince anyone that what you say has any truth whatsoever. The others say anyone that worships Jesus is false. That is as far as it goes. Neither one of you has anything further than your own opinion.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I'm glad that you are more in tune with life now, but I must ask, how do you feel about when this life is over? Do you just kinda put that out of your mind and not think about it?



There is nothing to think about. I will "live" through my family and friends and any impact I've made to others after I am dead. No sense trying to con myself into anything more. I was not around in any spiritual way shape or form before my birth and I won't be after my death.
I'm sure my escapades will be embellished along the way too. Just like everyone's.


----------



## bullethead

Welder, when I said tell us why other religions are false I did not mean to regurgitate the same old opinion. Do you have anything substantial that backs up your claim?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welder, when I said tell us why other religions are false I did not mean to regurgitate the same old opinion. Do you have anything substantial that backs up your claim?



All I can say is there was a time in my life when I thought people who believed in a man named Jesus were just strange, out of touch people.
I could not understand why they believed in such "nonsense". But then, something changed.It was like a dark fog had been lifted and I could see what I once could not.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> All I can say is there was a time in my life when I thought people who believed in a man named Jesus were just strange, out of touch people.
> I could not understand why they believed in such "nonsense". But then, something changed.It was like a dark fog had been lifted and I could see what I once could not.


So at one time you didn't believe and now you do, and I did believe and now dont.
Since that cancels opinions from each side out, and let's throw out the opinions from  believers in other gods too....do you really have anything other than opinion?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> So at one time you didn't believe and now you do, and I did believe and now dont.
> Since that cancels opinions from each side out, and let's throw out the opinions from  believers in other gods too....do you really have anything other than opinion?



I think what it says the loudest and clearest to me is this. Belief must be accompanied by something besides just head knowledge.Doesn't that seem like a logical conclusion,based on yours and my personal honest experiences?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I think what it says the loudest and clearest to me is this. Belief must be accompanied by something besides just head knowledge.Doesn't that seem like a logical conclusion,based on yours and my personal honest experiences?


Yes. Self need for any number of reasons.

But I didn't ask what it says to you, I asked if you have anything other than opinions?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yes. Self need for any number of reasons.



What about all those years that I didn't believe? I never thought there was a need to believe those things then.What suddenly changed?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> What about all those years that I didn't believe? I never thought there was a need to believe those things then.What suddenly changed?


You changed.
I don't have a clue what you did or what happened or what event, habit or trouble that may have occurred but you do.
I don't expect you to tell me, just be honest with yourself.

And again I ask, do you have anything other than opinion?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You changed.
> I don't have a clue what you did or what happened or what event, habit or trouble that may have occurred but you do.
> I don't expect you to tell me, just be honest with yourself.
> 
> And again I ask, do you have anything other than opinion?



I definitely changed,but I don't believe it was me who caused the change.
I believe you if you say that you caused yourself to change.But,for you to automatically assume the same applies to my case is just presumptuous.That's your opinion,and you're certainly entitled to it,but what I'm relating about myself is not opinion.It's first hand knowledge.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I definitely changed,but I don't believe it was me who caused the change.
> I believe you if you say that you caused yourself to change.But,for you to automatically assume the same applies to my case is just presumptuous.That's your opinion,and you're certainly entitled to it,but what I'm relating about myself is not opinion.It's first hand knowledge.


There is no doubt in my mind you changed. And I'd bet that you were in a situation where you needed to catch a break and it happened and you associated that with a mystical spirit because up until then you never thought you could do it yourself without help. You need(ed) acceptance and you get it from yourself and attribute it to an outside source. You call that first hand knowledge.
So if first hand knowledge is good enough then you cannot argue against the validity of all the other people that worship all the other gods. What is good enough for you is certainly good enough for them. 
How can you be honest and still say yours is not an opinion but theirs is? That is the definition of presumptuous.

And don't forget that my journey from believer to non believer is great evidence, well in the way you use evidence, against your claims.
But I think because of my lack of the need for inside and therefore outside acceptance gives me an easier way to take a step back and question like I do.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> There is no doubt in my mind you changed. And I'd bet that you were in a situation where you needed to catch a break and it happened and you associated that with a mystical spirit because up until then you never thought you could do it yourself without help. You need(ed) acceptance and you get it from yourself and attribute it to an outside source. You call that first hand knowledge.
> So if first hand knowledge is good enough then you cannot argue against the validity of all the other people that worship all the other gods. What is good enough for you is certainly good enough for them.
> How can you be honest and still say yours is not an opinion but theirs is? That is the definition of presumptuous.
> 
> And don't forget that my journey from believer to non believer is great evidence, well in the way you use evidence, against your claims.
> But I think because of my lack of the need for inside and therefore outside acceptance gives me an easier way to take a step back and question like I do.



That sounds like alot of speculation to me. But I guess you will say the same thing about what I'm saying too.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That sounds like alot of speculation to me. But I guess you will say the same thing about what I'm saying too.


Some speculation on my guesses about you, but I noticed you did not say I was wrong.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Some speculation on my guesses about you, but I noticed you did not say I was wrong.



Some of what you said is true about me, but that doesn't equate to no God.Rather, it shows a God who chastises faithfully, and draws his children out of their darkness, toward Himself. And He also forgives, and heals their broken heart. I have experienced all of that and even though you don't believe me, God did those things for me. There's simply no possible way that I could have or would have orchestrated, on my own,all the changes that have taken place.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Some of what you said is true about me, but that doesn't equate to no God.Rather, it shows a God who chastises faithfully, and draws his children out of their darkness, toward Himself. And He also forgives, and heals their broken heart. I have experienced all of that and even though you don't believe me, God did those things for me. There's simply no possible way that I could have or would have orchestrated, on my own,all the changes that have taken place.


Thanks,I appreciate your honesty.
If what you say is true then believers in all gods everywhere have the same evidence. Why is yours any different?
Why do you think that the Christian god does that for Christians but not Islamists and Allah does that very same thing for Islamists but not Christians and neither of those gods do that for the Hindus but Vishnu takes care of them by helping them become something that they absolutely could not do on their own yet he won't  help anyone that is not a Hindu.
These gods HAVE to exist based on your experiences because there are literally hundreds of millions of people just like you that has that same feeling.
If they are wrong wouldn't you be wrong for the same reasons? Why would so many live for a lie?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Thanks,I appreciate your honesty.
> If what you say is true then believers in all gods everywhere have the same evidence. Why is yours any different?
> Why do you think that the Christian god does that for Christians but not Islamists and Allah does that very same thing for Islamists but not Christians and neither of those gods do that for the Hindus but Vishnu takes care of them by helping them become something that they absolutely could not do on their own yet he won't  help anyone that is not a Hindu.
> These gods HAVE to exist based on your experiences because there are literally hundreds of millions of people just like you that has that same feeling.
> If they are wrong wouldn't you be wrong for the same reasons? Why would so many live for a lie?



The true God,of the bible,has told us in His inspired Word,that there will be many false gods.And that they are man made, unlike Him, who created man.He has shown Himself in His creation, and by signs and wonders, fulfilled prophecies, and also revealed Himself inwardly by His Spirit to His people. He has likewise hidden Himself inwardly from those that are not.
Now, you can deny all of this, but in so doing,you actually affirm it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> The true God,of the bible,has told us in His inspired Word,that there will be many false gods.And that they are man made, unlike Him, who created man.He has shown Himself in His creation, and by signs and wonders, fulfilled prophecies, and also revealed Himself inwardly by His Spirit to His people. He has likewise hidden Himself inwardly from those that are not.
> Now, you can deny all of this, but in so doing,you actually affirm it.


How can all of those other gods be false if hundreds of millions, actually over a billion people have the same experiences as you?
A quick search of gods responsible for creation that give signs and wonders and also fulfilled prophesy shows that there are literally hundreds of them.
I am a little shocked that you consider them man made when yours is exactly the same. In fact all those believers say the same thing about every god other than theirs.
With all that evidence, I mean since it is exactly like your evidence and it is too coincidental to overlook, I have to either believe that they are all true or since they are all like yours they are all man made and yours is too.
Your evidence to set your religion apart from theirs just isn't compelling.
By my reply to you I have just confirmed theirs too.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> How can all of those other gods be false if hundreds of millions, actually over a billion people have the same experiences as you?
> A quick search of gods responsible for creation that give signs and wonders and also fulfilled prophesy shows that there are literally hundreds of them.
> I am a little shocked that you consider them man made when yours is exactly the same. In fact all those believers say the same thing about every god other than theirs.
> With all that evidence, I mean since it is exactly like your evidence and it is too coincidental to overlook, I have to either believe that they are all true or since they are all like yours they are all man made and yours is too.
> Your evidence to set your religion apart from theirs just isn't compelling.
> By my reply to you I have just confirmed theirs too.



I guess that's why people such as yourself are referred to as unbelievers. You do not possess the ability to believe in the true God(at this point in time).Neither do they. Satan has the ability to transform himself into an angel of light(2 Cor 11:13-15).It's no wonder so many are deceived.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I guess that's why people such as yourself are referred to as unbelievers. You do not possess the ability to believe in the true God(at this point in time).Neither do they. Satan has the ability to transform himself into an angel of light(2 Cor 11:13-15).It's no wonder so many are deceived.


Yeah yeah yeah, you keep saying all this stuff."one true god.. they are wrong..my man written handbook says so..Satan did it..you wouldn't understand..you cannot understand..you were made to never understand.. etc etc etc"

When you have something original let us know.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I guess that's why people such as yourself are referred to as unbelievers. You do not possess the ability to believe in the true God(at this point in time).Neither do they. Satan has the ability to transform himself into an angel of light(2 Cor 11:13-15).It's no wonder so many are deceived.


Welder to you what is the difference between these 2 statements -
10 lbs is heavier than 5 lbs.
Red is prettier than blue.


----------



## hummerpoo

Only the One True God fulfills His just imperatives for His chosen creatures in their stead.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Only the One True God fulfills His just imperatives for His chosen creatures in their stead.


Says who?


----------



## 660griz

hummerpoo said:


> Only the One True God fulfills His just imperatives for His chosen creatures in their stead.



Like I stated before, of all the religions, you have a .025% chance of being right. 

"So, you're saying there's a chance?"  (Dumb and Dumber)


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Says who?



Who says different?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder to you what is the difference between these 2 statements -
> 10 lbs is heavier than 5 lbs.
> Red is prettier than blue.



Duh? One has numbers and one has colors?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Welder to you what is the difference between these 2 statements -
> 10 lbs is heavier than 5 lbs.
> Red is prettier than blue.



Walt. Which is heavier? 100 lbs. of pretty blue feathers, or 100 lbs. of ugly red bowling balls?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Who says different?


I'm your huckleberry


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Welder to you what is the difference between these 2 statements -
> 10 lbs is heavier than 5 lbs.
> Red is prettier than blue.


That answer is not found in his handbook therefore no genuine answer from him will be attempted.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I'm your huckleberry



Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of[for]* those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.

*[for] is a correction


----------



## welderguy

hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.



Bullethead can't.That's why he hasn't given you any answer.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.


You will find those answers in the testimony of the followers of many religions. Just like you find above in the spiritual forum here.
You have a lot of homework to do.
Wikipedia is a good start .


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Bullethead can't.That's why he hasn't given you any answer.



Or, I cannot be on here 24/7 so I answer asap.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You will find those answers in the testimony of the followers of many religions. Just like you find above in the spiritual forum here.
> You have a lot of homework to do.



I have no clue of what those religions might be, and have done some homework.  I find Him to be unique.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> I have no clue of what those religions might be, and have done some homework.  I find Him to be unique.



You didn't do well I school with those answers did you?
I find IT to be man made.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> You didn't do well I school with those answers did you?
> I find IT to be man made.



Do you have anything responsive?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Do you have anything responsive?



Hp, literally a very quick search gave me examples of what you are asking.
 Islam and the Quran includes them.
Testimony of its followers back it up.

Being that is all you have as evidence for your own claims, theirs is as credible or as false. Same either way and not unique.


----------



## bullethead

Search Egyptian dieties.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Hp, literally a very quick search gave me examples of what you are asking.
> Islam and the Quran includes them.
> Testimony of its followers back it up.
> 
> Being that is all you have as evidence for your own claims, theirs is as credible or as false. Same either way and not unique.



Your results are faulty.
I have my Qur'an here if you want to guide me, it's the Shakir translation.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.


Be specific and in layman's terms and I'll get you some answers.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.


Fulfill the requirements for being a god?
exactly who came up with these requirements?


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Be specific and in layman's terms and I'll get you some answers.



That’s what I tried to do with the second post —make it simple.

You will understand that I am reluctant to pick a single scriptural example, or method of explanation, because it is difficult to know what your understanding will be (it’s a tower of Babel thing, IMHO).

Let’s try this:
God is holy (holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character)
See what I mean; you get blocked right there.  No matter what I say next, you won’t hear it.

O.K., we’ll go with a really incomplete scriptural example that may get you started.
Mat 14:15  Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves." 
Mat 14:16  But Jesus said, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat."
Mat 14:17  They said to him, "We have only five loaves here and two fish." 
Mat 14:18  And he said, "Bring them here to me."
Mat 14:19  Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. 
Mat 14:20  And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. 

Jesus told them to feed the people, but what happened? He fed the people.

Another:

God required obedience:
Gen 2:15  The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 
Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 
Gen 2:17  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." 

No man ever obeyed.  Jesus did obey, then He stood in for God’s People who have not obeyed.  Substitutionary attonement.  God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

I’m sure that’s enough for you to understand the earlier post if you try; understanding or believing more than that is not something any man can do.

Good luck.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Fulfill the requirements for being a god?
> exactly who came up with these requirements?





hummerpoo said:


> Are you saying that you can identify multiple gods who fulfill the requirements that they make of those who would follow them, then credit those followers with having fulfilled the requirements?  Please do; I have some research to do.



Got it?

<<edit>>
Shoot!! ... I just came back to check in and probably spotted the problem (my mistake, naturally);
I typed "that they make of those who would follow them",
I thought "that they make FOR those who would follow them"
SORRY, I'll correct above.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> The true God,of the bible,has told us in His inspired Word,that there will be many false gods.And that they are man made, unlike Him, who created man.He has shown Himself in His creation, and by signs and wonders, fulfilled prophecies, and also revealed Himself inwardly by His Spirit to His people. He has likewise hidden Himself inwardly from those that are not.
> Now, you can deny all of this, but in so doing,you actually affirm it.



Why doesn't that give Bullethead an excuse?


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> That’s what I tried to do with the second post —make it simple.


It was very unclear 



hummerpoo said:


> You will understand that I am reluctant to pick a single scriptural example, or method of explanation, because it is difficult to know what your understanding will be (it’s a tower of Babel thing, IMHO).


So it can only be backed by man made writings and as difficult to believe as the incredibly inaccurate story of how the different Languages came to be within those writings. 
Ok, got it.




hummerpoo said:


> Let’s try this:
> God is holy (holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character)
> See what I mean; you get blocked right there.  No matter what I say next, you won’t hear it.


Holy as in the holy clergy has been holy throughout the history of the churches.
Yes that does put up a block for me right away.



hummerpoo said:


> O.K., we’ll go with a really incomplete scriptural example that may get you started.
> Mat 14:15  Now when it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, "This is a desolate place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves."
> Mat 14:16  But Jesus said, "They need not go away; you give them something to eat."
> Mat 14:17  They said to him, "We have only five loaves here and two fish."
> Mat 14:18  And he said, "Bring them here to me."
> Mat 14:19  Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass, and taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and said a blessing. Then he broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.
> Mat 14:20  And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.
> 
> Jesus told them to feed the people, but what happened? He fed the people.


They were listening to a man.
History is full of men telling others to do something only to go and do it them self.
I did not know Jesus was actually god. I recall some scripture that would seem to go along with that line of thought.
John 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

Luke 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."

John 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.

Mth 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone.

Well if Jesus is not good that blows away the Holy claim you used above.
And I cannot find scripture where Jesus says "I am God"



hummerpoo said:


> Another:
> 
> God required obedience:
> Gen 2:15  The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
> Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
> Gen 2:17  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
> 
> No man ever obeyed.  Jesus did obey, then He stood in for God’s People who have not obeyed.  Substitutionary attonement.  God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful.


Wasn't there something in the 10 commandments about the Sabbath? 
John 5:16-18
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.




hummerpoo said:


> I’m sure that’s enough for you to understand the earlier post if you try; understanding or believing more than that is not something any man can do.
> 
> Good luck.


Yes, thank you, my understanding is quite a bit clearer now.


----------



## hummerpoo

OK, nothing responsive.
Thanks


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> OK, nothing responsive.
> Thanks


I just used your own scripture to directly refute your own scripture.
Your reply is as flatlined as your points above and that is why it was so easy to refute it.

Move along, you had nothing.


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> I just used your own scripture to directly refute your own scripture.
> Your reply is as flatlined as your points above and that is why it was so easy to refute it.
> 
> Move along, you had nothing.



Or, from the other side of the glass, you used your lack of understanding to prove your lack of understanding.
But, hey, I don't think that either of us expected a different result.

Like I said,
and really meant,
Thanks
and
Good Luck


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> Or, from the other side of the glass, you used your lack of understanding to prove your lack of understanding.
> But, hey, I don't think that either of us expected a different result.
> 
> Like I said,
> and really meant,
> Thanks
> and
> Good Luck





Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

Your inability to refute my reply is evidence of my "luck" and lack of "understanding".


----------



## hummerpoo

bullethead said:


> Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
> 
> And since you still have not been able to refute someone with no "understanding" that used the very scripture you follow to counter your evidence does not say much about your understanding.



"refute", "understanding", "counter" ... I've got a lot of studying to do.  I'll be back when I figure out all these complicated words.


----------



## bullethead

hummerpoo said:


> "refute", "understanding", "counter" ... I've got a lot of studying to do.  I'll be back when I figure out all these complicated words.


Yeah, you'll be back.

4 or 5 posts from you and zip.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt. Which is heavier? 100 lbs. of pretty blue feathers, or 100 lbs. of ugly red bowling balls?


The 100lbs of pretty blue feathers are heavier.
Can you prove me wrong?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> The 100lbs of pretty blue feathers are heavier.
> Can you prove me wrong?



I believe so, but it would take faith that the proving methods and devices were true. Agree?


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Got it?
> 
> <<edit>>
> Shoot!! ... I just came back to check in and probably spotted the problem (my mistake, naturally);
> I typed "that they make of those who would follow them",
> I thought "that they make FOR those who would follow them"
> SORRY, I'll correct above.


No worries. And I'm doing a poor job of getting to my point.
You have picked out two attributes, the above and in another post you used the attribute "unique" to separate out the Christian God from the other gods as some sort of proof or support of being the One True God.
So my question is who decided those were attributes of the One True God?
Seems to me you are picking out attributes that conform to YOUR idea of what the One True God would do or be like.
If a god of a different religion has a story unique to it, then what?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I believe so, but it would take faith that the proving methods and devices were true. Agree?



Sure. If you have no knowledge of how to actually prove it.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe so, but it would take faith that the proving methods and devices were true. Agree?


No I don't agree. But it doesn't matter.
How would you prove me wrong?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> No I don't agree. But it doesn't matter.
> How would you prove me wrong?



My first thought would be to go get a set of balances and put the feathers on one side and the bowling balls on the other.They should balance evenly,if I'm right....but, I'm going on faith that the balance is not faulty or rigged.
It applies to every method of testing I can think of. You must start with a true, immovable standard and then test against that standard. I think you know what standard I am alluding to,right? He requires faith that He is true. If you don't have that faith, all the other is senseless.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> My first thought would be to go get a set of balances and put the feathers on one side and the bowling balls on the other.They should balance evenly,if I'm right....but, I'm going on faith that the balance is not faulty or rigged.
> It applies to every method of testing I can think of. You must start with a true, immovable standard and then test against that standard. I think you know what standard I am alluding to,right? He requires faith that He is true. If you don't have that faith, all the other is senseless.



You are dead on the money. Well until you went off the tracks at the end there anyway.
So you've acknowledged there is process by which you come up with answer that stands on its own. 100 lbs is 100 lbs. Doesn't matter what I or anybody else believes. I am wrong even if I still believe it.
So my question is what process did you use, that just like above, came up with irrefutable proof that all other religions have it wrong and/or are deceived?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You are dead on the money. Well until you went off the tracks at the end there anyway.
> So you've acknowledged there is process by which you come up with answer that stands on its own. 100 lbs is 100 lbs. Doesn't matter what I or anybody else believes. I am wrong even if I still believe it.
> So my question is what process did you use, that just like above, came up with irrefutable proof that all other religions have it wrong and/or are deceived?



My "true immovable standard" is God and His inspired Word. I line everything up against that standard.If it "balances out", I consider it true.If it doesn't, I consider it false.
How do I know the standard is true? Faith.
Can faith be proven? No.

Thus, believers and nonbelievers will continue to debate til the end of time because they do not agree on the standard.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> My "true immovable standard" is God and His inspired Word. I line everything up against that standard.If it "balances out", I consider it true.If it doesn't, I consider it false.
> How do I know the standard is true? Faith.
> Can faith be proven? No.
> 
> Thus, believers and nonbelievers will continue to debate til the end of time because they do not agree on the standard.


See this is what I'm trying to work out.
You acknowledge you can't use the process to prove them wrong like you proved me wrong
You acknowledge that what you believe can't be proven. 
How do you personally square in your mind, KNOWING the above, insisting someone else is wrong?
And please don't go off on the whole faith thing. Acknowledging you have to have faith is acknowledging you can't prove it so that just goes in circle.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> See this is what I'm trying to work out.
> You acknowledge you can't use the process to prove them wrong like you proved me wrong
> You acknowledge that what you believe can't be proven.
> How do you personally square in your mind, KNOWING the above, insisting someone else is wrong?
> And please don't go off on the whole faith thing. Acknowledging you have to have faith is acknowledging you can't prove it so that just goes in circle.



Walt, you have managed to boil it all down.My belief can not be proven by me to another individual any more than their's can. All I can do is tell others about something that I have inside which was given to me, that can't be seen. Only evidence of it can (hopefully) be seen.But someone, that it has not been given to ,will not believe I have it and probably will not acknowledge the evidence either. 

I'm settled in my belief of God(of the bible) and I take His word for many things,without Him proving to my eyes that they are true.I'm OK with that.
But, I can imagine how unsettling it must be for someone who doesn't believe,that requires proof that is seen with the eyes.Is there any true peace in that?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt, you have managed to boil it all down.My belief can not be proven by me to another individual any more than their's can. All I can do is tell others about something that I have inside which was given to me, that can't be seen. Only evidence of it can (hopefully) be seen.But someone, that it has not been given to ,will not believe I have it and probably will not acknowledge the evidence either.
> 
> I'm settled in my belief of God(of the bible) and I take His word for many things,without Him proving to my eyes that they are true.I'm OK with that.
> But, I can imagine how unsettling it must be for someone who doesn't believe,that requires proof that is seen with the eyes.Is there any true peace in that?



None of that addresses how you can claim they are wrong. When you can't prove something is right that by default leaves the possibility of it being wrong. That stands on its own just like the 100 lbs is 100 lbs regardless of what anybody thinks.
Why do your beliefs contradict that truth?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> None of that addresses how you can claim they are wrong. When you can't prove something is right that by default leaves the possibility of it being wrong. That stands on its own just like the 100 lbs is 100 lbs regardless of what anybody thinks.
> Why do your beliefs contradict that truth?



I know,based on what's inside me,which bears witness with my spirit,that there is only one true God.
It matters not what they call all those other gods,but what matters is their definition of them.That's what gives them away as being false.

You're never gonna understand what Im trying to tell you until the Holy Spirit comes into you,because that's the missing piece of your puzzle.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What makes God's Spirit bear witness with more spirit's of men from Christian nations? Another way of asking is, why does God elect more individuals from Christian nations?
God is no respecter of men and every man in the whole world knows God by his creation. Therefore it would stand to reason that God can call/elect form all nations without man spreading his word.
Perhaps there are individuals existing in equal amounts in all nations and from all decades of time that are elected in a type of universal election of sorts.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> What makes God's Spirit bear witness with more spirit's of men from Christian nations? Another way of asking is, why does God elect more individuals from Christian nations?
> God is no respecter of men and every man in the whole world knows God by his creation. Therefore it would stand to reason that God can call/elect form all nations without man spreading his word.
> Perhaps there are individuals existing in equal amounts in all nations and from all decades of time that are elected in a type of universal election of sorts.



Thats some more of that artful crazy talk.I cant even begin to ...nevermind.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Actually it's from Primitive Baptist Universalists. They have taken election to a higher level. It's a variation on the Primitive Baptist eternal vs. time salvations contrivance. One can purportedly be  "eternally" saved yet live and die having never heard and/or accepted the Gospel. I would add that they learn about Jesus through divine revelation.

It's a way to explain how God can and does elect individuals in pagan nations and people from various times in history without ever hearing the Gospel. One in a foreign land can receive the Holy Spirit and receive the gift of knowledge to receive salvation.

I'm not saying that I agree God will save everyone but it is a way of understanding God electing pagans.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Sometimes I wonder what religion I might be if I was born in a foreign land or time. If say I was born it the 1400's in what we now call America.
I would know God by his creation. Yet I'm pretty sure I'd be of the same religion of my parents. One could say that this God was false. If election is real then it really doesn't matter. God would elect me and place his Spirit in me with my spirit. Under this concept time and or nation of birth doesn't matter.

Election is universal in that God can and does elect from "all." All time periods and nations. 

It just appears that God elects more individuals from a Christian nation but do we really know that for a fact? Perhaps this is a great mystery of God that we can't answer.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I know,based on what's inside me,which bears witness with my spirit,that there is only one true God.
> It matters not what they call all those other gods,but what matters is their definition of them.That's what gives them away as being false.
> 
> You're never gonna understand what Im trying to tell you until the Holy Spirit comes into you,because that's the missing piece of your puzzle.


I'm not missing any part  of the puzzle and whether I understand or not doesn't change the fact that if you can't prove something right that leaves the possibility of it being wrong. 
You are telling me to ignore the truth and take your word for it.
Maybe what I lack is not the ability to believe in a god, maybe what I lack is the ability to ignore the truth to satisfy the need for a god?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not missing any part  of the puzzle and whether I understand or not doesn't change the fact that if you can't prove something right that leaves the possibility of it being wrong.
> You are telling me to ignore the truth and take your word for it.
> Maybe what I lack is not the ability to believe in a god, maybe what I lack is the ability to ignore the truth to satisfy the need for a god?



When have I ever told you to ignore the truth?
The problem might be that you and I don't agree on what exactly the truth is.

Walt,have you ever read the parable of the prodigal son? If so, do you think your turning away from God in your younger days resembles the prodigal's? If so, why don't you stop running away and return to the open arms of the father?


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> I know,based on what's inside me,which bears witness with my spirit,that there is only one true God.
> It matters not what they call all those other gods,but what matters is their definition of them.That's what gives them away as being false.
> 
> You're never gonna understand what Im trying to tell you until the Holy Spirit comes into you,because that's the missing piece of your puzzle.



You 'know' that your God is the one true 'God' because of where you were born and who you were born to. 
Rarely do I meet individuals that shop for the best religion for them. They go with what their parents were, and their parents were, etc.  And then, after this great lottery of birth, BAM!, you have found the one true God. Nice! Lucky you. Meanwhile, billions of folks are not going to have a nice eternity because of the lottery of birth.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> When have I ever told you to ignore the truth?
> The problem might be that you and I don't agree on what exactly the truth is.
> 
> Walt,have you ever read the parable of the prodigal son? If so, do you think your turning away from God in your younger days resembles the prodigal's? If so, why don't you stop running away and return to the open arms of the father?



A truth/fact stands on its own regardless of what you and I agree on.
The fact is if you can't prove your claim that leaves the possibility you are wrong.
Do this - name some other facts that can't be proven to be a fact.
I'm giving you facts and you are responding with feelings.
Feelings don't change facts.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> A truth/fact stands on its own regardless of what you and I agree on.
> The fact is if you can't prove your claim that leaves the possibility you are wrong.
> Do this - name some other facts that can't be proven to be a fact.
> I'm giving you facts and you are responding with feelings.
> Feelings don't change facts.



Not too interested in persuing the fact & logic merrygoround conversation anymore.
But, what about the prodigal son question I asked?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Not too interested in persuing the fact & logic merrygoround conversation anymore.
> But, what about the prodigal son question I asked?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Not too interested in persuing the fact & logic merrygoround conversation anymore.
> But, what about the prodigal son questioyonen I asked?


Yeah facts and logic can certainly get in the way.
And no the story of the prodigal son has no relevance.
However I just showed you that to go along with the claim that everyone else is wrong, you have to ignore the truth/facts.
I find that to have relevance.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah facts and logic can certainly get in the way.
> And no the story of the prodigal son has no relevance.
> However I just showed you that to go along with the claim that everyone else is wrong, you have to ignore the truth/facts.
> I find that to have relevance.



I've been watching debates between believers and skeptics on youtube.  Believers like Dinesh D'souza, William Lane Craig and Ian Hutchinson (who is a well renowned physicist) and non believers such as Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and the late Christopher Hitchens.   One of the strongest repeated arguments from the believers side is that science and reason are not the only tools available to define reality but I can't seem to grasp what they consider to be other "tools" and how do they know that they work.

I also just finished Daniel Pinchbeck's book _Breaking Open the Head_ in which he describes his quest for shamanistic, spiritual experience through the use of psychedelic drugs.  I noticed that Pinchbeck uses similar justifications as to why he believes in "other realms" and "spiritual entities".  Basically he saw them while tripping, other people see them when tripping and there is a very long and documented history of shamen seeing them when tripping.  

I'm not trying to make the case that believers are tripping when they experience God, although there is some interesting neuroscience that shows similarity to drug or stress induced brain function and brain function of monks and devotees deep in prayer.

I have some more thoughts on this.  To be continued.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Which came first seeing God while using drugs or using drugs to see God?


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> Which came first seeing God while using drugs or using drugs to see God?



I am going with seeing God while using drugs.
Probably an 'accident' at first. May even explain the 'inspired word of God'. 

Then came, using God to get off drugs.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah facts and logic can certainly get in the way.
> And no the story of the prodigal son has no relevance.
> However I just showed you that to go along with the claim that everyone else is wrong, you have to ignore the truth/facts.
> I find that to have relevance.



The fact and logic I was putting forth was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is fact and perfectly logical to those who have it. I was wondering about when you were a "believer",if the Holy Spirit was involved in your "belief"or just head knowledge.Apparently,from your response,it was only head knowledge.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit can't be proven to others,but that doesn't mean it's untrue.It just means it's personal.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Which came first seeing God while using drugs or using drugs to see God?



I've come across some anthropology articles that suggest that drug use contributed to spirituality in general and others that claim a direct link to drug use and the God concept.  Shamanism unequivocally links the use of psychedelics with communion with God.  Here's an interesting piece i found quite quickly:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/prehistoricdrugs.htm

Do a little research if you're interested.   I would say that the use of psychedelics will certainly cause a mental state that I can't imagine reproducing without them.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> The fact and logic I was putting forth was the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is fact and perfectly logical to those who have it. I was wondering about when you were a "believer",if the Holy Spirit was involved in your "belief"or just head knowledge.Apparently,from your response,it was only head knowledge.
> The indwelling of the Holy Spirit can't be proven to others,but that doesn't mean it's untrue.It just means it's personal.



That's the point everybody is trying to make to you.  It's like saying "vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream".  It's not a fact.  It may be a fact that you think vanilla is the best a flavor of ice cream.  Those claims are not the same at all.

Saying "My god is real" is like declaring a best flavor of ice cream.  You will have people that agree with you and some that disagree with you.  It says nothing about if it is true.


----------



## drippin' rock

ambush80 said:


> I've come across some anthropology articles that suggest that drug use contributed to spirituality in general and others that claim a direct link to drug use and the God concept.  Shamanism unequivocally links the use of psychedelics with communion with God.  Here's an interesting piece i found quite quickly:
> 
> http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/prehistoricdrugs.htm
> 
> Do a little research if you're interested.   I would say that the use of psychedelics will certainly cause a mental state that I can't imagine reproducing without them.



http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=751465&highlight=dmt


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> That's the point everybody is trying to make to you.  It's like saying "vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream".  It's not a fact.  It may be a fact that you think vanilla is the best a flavor of ice cream.  Those claims are not the same at all.
> 
> Saying "My god is real" is like declaring a best flavor of ice cream.  You will have people that agree with you and some that disagree with you.  It says nothing about if it is true.


Yep, just like all the other billions of people in the world that apparently love a different flavor.
Welder has not only never tried their ice cream, but he goes so far to say it is not even ice cream at all.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Yep, just like all the other billions of people in the world that apparently love a different flavor.
> Welder has not only never tried their ice cream, but he goes so far to say it is not even ice cream at all.



Well said.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yep, just like all the other billions of people in the world that apparently love a different flavor.
> Welder has not only never tried their ice cream, but he goes so far to say it is not even ice cream at all.



Hey, don't hate on me just cause I'm lactose intolerant.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> See this is what I'm trying to work out.
> You acknowledge you can't use the process to prove them wrong like you proved me wrong
> You acknowledge that what you believe can't be proven.
> How do you personally square in your mind, KNOWING the above, insisting someone else is wrong?
> And please don't go off on the whole faith thing. Acknowledging you have to have faith is acknowledging you can't prove it so that just goes in circle.


Sam Harris said it best:
"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail."


----------



## Israel

Sam Harris endorsed his own lack of credibility when a friend gave me his discourse on Ethics. He spoke of his having "studied" in whatever measure and then declared this study had "made him a better man".
Really? What's the metric? His own appraisal? Really? Others? If so, Hitler was for many then, undeniably so. I won't judge Hitler, but I will be amused at men who either think they know themselves without bias...or gladly play to the opinions of others.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Sam Harris endorsed his own lack of credibility when a friend gave me his discourse on Ethics. He spoke of his having "studied" in whatever measure and then declared this study had "made him a better man".
> Really? What's the metric? His own appraisal? Really? Others? If so, Hitler was for many then, undeniably so. I won't judge Hitler, but I will be amused at men who either think they know themselves without bias...or gladly play to the opinions of others.


Do you hold the religious who claim to "be a better person" because of their faith to the same standards?


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Sam Harris endorsed his own lack of credibility when a friend gave me his discourse on Ethics. He spoke of his having "studied" in whatever measure and then declared this study had "made him a better man".
> Really? What's the metric? His own appraisal? Really? Others? If so, Hitler was for many then, undeniably so. I won't judge Hitler, but I will be amused at men who either think they know themselves without bias...or gladly play to the opinions of others.



If you don't think study, of anything,  makes you "better" than remaining completely ignorant, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Do you hold the religious who claim to "be a better person" because of their faith to the same standards?



Quite so.

Faith hasn't made me a better person, it shows me the better person.
Surprisingly, the One who, though better, considers me, better than Himself.
He has preferred me to His own life. This is too much for me to apprehend, nevertheless, how He is, how he can "do" that is, teaching me about a thing I once thought I knew, but realize I have known nothing...at all.
Love.


----------

