# Great Explanation of the Fermi Paradox



## Thanatos (May 10, 2015)

When debating with some of the atheist on this forum I've mentioned the Fermi Paradox. Here is a AWESOME explanation of the Fermi Paradox. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=369&v=sNhhvQGsMEc


----------



## 660griz (May 11, 2015)

Makes some good points and overlooks some. It is true there may not be life except us. However, there could be life on other planets and not have space ships. We have life on his planet, including humanoid populations, that couldn't build a space ship. 
So, we keep looking. I hope they find a planet, we can get to, that is inhabited by nothing but elk and deer. 

Not sure the video has much to do with the belief or lack of belief in a God though.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2015)

We cannot get out of our own Solar System and maybe others cannot get out of theirs..maybe they can but do not want to...maybe they have and are still so far away they cannot get to ours..maybe they have gotten to ours and are afraid to contact..maybe they have been here all along? 
The problem with Fermi is that it assumes every other habitable planet like Earth evolved like Earth. It takes no account of all the variables that could alter life as we have known it to occur here on our own planet. Many more advanced humanoid type species could have been wiped out by asteroid strikes and the entire planet could have been set back billions of years.
I doubt each planet with similarities to Earth would evolve exactly like Earth or that the species on those planets would have taken similar evolutionary  paths.
If even a thousand planets are EXACTLY like Earth is and has taken the exact same paths the Universe is so vast that it is more likely we will never ever have enough technology to run into each other or make contact.
The variables left out of the Fermi Paradox are incomprehensible and the assumptions are nearly as much.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2015)

http://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/16638/
Here are some good points.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 11, 2015)

Considering we are still discovering life not previously known right here on THIS planet, the argument that "if there were aliens flying around out there we would have noticed by now" seems kind of silly.


----------



## 660griz (May 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Considering we are still discovering life not previously known right here on THIS planet, the argument that "if there were aliens flying around out there we would have noticed by now" seems kind of silly.



Life = space ships is sillier.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 11, 2015)

660griz said:


> Life = space ships is sillier.


Yeah Im not sure how life got translated into aliens in space ships. That was the point in the video I kinda went oh geeeeeeez................


----------



## welderguy (May 11, 2015)

As a believer of the bible,I do not believe God created other life on any other planets.I believe this because of what John 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18 says.

John 3:16 states that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.

1 Peter 3:18 states that Jesus suffered ONCE for sins.

So, there was only one atonement by only one Son of God.That rules out a possibility of other life  out there that God created for Himself.
That's my belief anyway.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As a believer of the bible,I do not believe God created other life on any other planets.I believe this because of what John 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18 says.
> 
> John 3:16 states that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.
> 
> ...




As a believer of the bible , I believe you just stretched those verses way beyond their intent.
 We are under covenant with God , that does not mean He has given us all the knowledge of the world, and it does not mean He hasn't created life somewhere else.

 Even if we found a planet somewhere teaming with life ,My faith in Christ would not change one iota.....would yours?


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> As a believer of the bible , I believe you just stretched those verses way beyond their intent.
> We are under covenant with God , that does not mean He has given us all the knowledge of the world, and it does not mean He hasn't created life somewhere else.
> 
> Even if we found a planet somewhere teaming with life ,My faith in Christ would not change one iota.....would yours?



Do you wonder if Christianity would be present on these other planets?


----------



## drippin' rock (May 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As a believer of the bible,I do not believe God created other life on any other planets.I believe this because of what John 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18 says.
> 
> John 3:16 states that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.
> 
> ...



Do you think it is a waste of time for man to search?


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Do you wonder if Christianity would be present on these other planets?



It would have no effect on my faith. And no I don't wonder.


----------



## welderguy (May 11, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> As a believer of the bible , I believe you just stretched those verses way beyond their intent.
> We are under covenant with God , that does not mean He has given us all the knowledge of the world, and it does not mean He hasn't created life somewhere else.
> 
> Even if we found a planet somewhere teaming with life ,My faith in Christ would not change one iota.....would yours?



Don't know how they're stretched because they are pretty straight forward.
But, regardless, if there is life somewhere else, it would have to be sinless because there's only one Son and He only died once for a certain exclusive number of people.

You are correct about us not having all the knowledge about His creation, but we have all of what He's given us in His revealed word.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Don't know how they're stretched because they are pretty straight forward.
> But, regardless, if there is life somewhere else, it would have to be sinless because there's only one Son and He only died once for a certain exclusive number of people.
> 
> You are correct about us not having all the knowledge about His creation, but we have all of what He's given us in His revealed word.



The verses say nothing of life on other planets. It's not even a question asked in the bible, so the bible can't answer it.


----------



## welderguy (May 11, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Do you think it is a waste of time for man to search?



I say search all they want,just don't use any of my hard earned tax dollars to do it.


----------



## welderguy (May 11, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> The verses say nothing of life on other planets. It's not even a question asked in the bible, so the bible can't answer it.



What about this that you said in the Hebrews study thread?:

[QUOTE/Hobbs27] "The phrase 'at sundry and diverse times' literally means 'in many parts' simply meaning God's revelations concerning salvation were given to mankind a piece at a time, not all at once; in fact Isaiah 28:13 records that 'The word of the Lord was Here a little and there a little'... Gods revelations were progressive"


----------



## hobbs27 (May 11, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What about this that you said in the Hebrews study thread:
> 
> [Hobbs] "The phrase 'at sundry and diverse times' literally means 'in many parts' simply meaning God's revelations concerning salvation were given to mankind a piece at a time, not all at once; in fact Isaiah 28:13 records that 'The word of the Lord was Here a little and there a little'... Gods revelations were progressive"



Welderguy, Hebrews was written by a church leader, possibly Paul from 64ad or earlier. Nothing in that content is about life on other planets.
 Man on earth was in covenant with God under the law because of Adam, man on earth now are in Covenant with God with grace through faith because of Christ.

 Who knows if life is on other planets...who cares?  We as earthlings have a covenant with God...maybe people of another planet have another covenant.


----------



## welderguy (May 11, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Welderguy, Hebrews was written by a church leader, possibly Paul from 64ad or earlier. Nothing in that content is about life on other planets.
> Man on earth was in covenant with God under the law because of Adam, man on earth now are in Covenant with God with grace through faith because of Christ.
> 
> Who knows if life is on other planets...who cares?  We as earthlings have a covenant with God...maybe people of another planet have another covenant.



I think you missed my point entirely but it doesn't matter.I don't see any sense in belabouring any of this anyway.


----------



## pnome (May 11, 2015)




----------



## Artfuldodger (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Don't know how they're stretched because they are pretty straight forward.
> But, regardless, if there is life somewhere else, it would have to be sinless because there's only one Son and He only died once for a certain exclusive number of people.
> 
> You are correct about us not having all the knowledge about His creation, but we have all of what He's given us in His revealed word.



He only had one Son who died only once. Although this Son humanly materialized in the "world" of the middle east, God is capable of electing worldwide. 
Why limit God's election to your definition of "world?"

If we look at Jesus as the human image of the one universal God delivered for our salvation, isn't it possible that the one universal God could give aliens on other planets their own manifestation or image of the one true universal God?
Could there not be aliens on other planets made in the image of God as we are? God could have himself  manifest as his Son to them in their life form? In other words the Son could have appeared to them or perhaps will appear to them in the future.


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

Gen.18:14 "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"

Jer.32:17 "Ah Lord, God! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee."

Jer 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is there anything too hard for me?"

These verses tell me that God could have easily made other living souls on other planets, but my question is" Why?".If He said that He sent His Son to die once,(and God doesn't lie)then how would He redeem them to live with Him in eternity?


----------



## 660griz (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> but my question is" Why?"



Mine too. Why here? Like I have asked before.
Why did he/she create anything?
What was the point? Bored?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Gen.18:14 "Is anything too hard for the Lord?"
> 
> Jer.32:17 "Ah Lord, God! Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee."
> 
> ...



God created everything. When sin entered his creation it entered all creation. Why couldn't the Son's one death redeem all sin? Even sin on other planets?
Is Jesus not the universal savior? Why limit his redemption to the "world" when we don't even know what "world" means?


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> Mine too. Why here? Like I have asked before.
> Why did he/she create anything?
> What was the point? Bored?



I believe Eph.2:7 tells why He created us on this planet in a nutshell.

"That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."


----------



## hobbs27 (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe Eph.2:7 tells why He created us on this planet in a nutshell.
> 
> "That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."





 We sure read scripture differently, have you attempted to exegete this verse?


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> We sure read scripture differently, have you attempted to exegete this verse?



Notice I said "I believe" at the beginning. So if you don't agree, that's ok.
(a little tip I received from my friend Walt) thanks Walt.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As a believer of the bible,I do not believe God created other life on any other planets.I believe this because of what John 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18 says.
> 
> John 3:16 states that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son.
> 
> ...



What effect would discovering intelligent life on other planets have on your faith?


----------



## 660griz (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I believe Eph.2:7 tells why He created us on this planet in a nutshell.
> 
> "That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus."



He created us so he could show how nice he was by coming back as a human and being sacrificed and then go back to heaven? 
Ummm k.


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> He created us so he could show how nice he was by coming back as a human and being sacrificed and then go back to heaven?
> Ummm k.



There's no point in appealing to reason.


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What effect would discovering intelligent life on other planets have on your faith?



Not much, because like I stated before, nothing is too hard for God.
It would be a challenge for me to understand how this life would fit into His plan of salvation and eternal life.
But like Hobbs and Art pointed out, we don't know the whole mind of God.
Only what He has chosen to reveal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not much, because like I stated before, nothing is too hard for God.
> It would be a challenge for me to understand how this life would fit into His plan of salvation and eternal life.
> But like Hobbs and Art pointed out, we don't know the whole mind of God.
> Only what He has chosen to reveal.



So you acknowledge that the Bible, based on this last part, may not be the sum total account of everything and everyone? 

That he said "one" and "only" because that was the part that was relevant to us and our planet?


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you acknowledge that the Bible, based on this last part, may not be the sum total account of everything and everyone?
> 
> That he said "one" and "only" because that was the part that was relevant to us and our planet?



I do agree the bible does not tell us everything,but I also believe it also does not contradict itself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do agree the bible does not tell us everything,but I also believe it also does not contradict itself.



I would agree with the former. The latter, well, that's well documented in other threads, so no need to


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would agree with the former. The latter, well, that's well documented in other threads, so no need to



I totally agree.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Notice I said "I believe" at the beginning. So if you don't agree, that's ok.
> (a little tip I received from my friend Walt) thanks Walt.




Its kind of freeing isn't it?
Now nobody can say "prove it" because you presented it as a belief instead of a fact.


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of freeing isn't it?
> Now nobody can say "prove it" because you presented it as a belief instead of a fact.



Genius...pure genius.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Genius...pure genius.



Did Walt score a convert while I was away? 

Awesome!


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did Walt score a convert while I was away?
> 
> Awesome!



 Now that's funny right there.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 12, 2015)

One of the many flaws in Fermi's paradox is it does not factor in the possibility of governments taking an active role in hiding/covering up information about life beyond this planet.....


----------



## ambush80 (May 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Now that's funny right there.



You've taken the first step.


----------



## welderguy (May 12, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You've taken the first step.



I believe you are badly mistaken.Sorry to get your hopes up.

Phil.1:6 says "Being confident of this very thing that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ."


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2015)

Thank You Thanatos,  this has already been one of the most entertaining threads.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 12, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did Walt score a convert while I was away?
> 
> Awesome!


While I enjoy a good challenge I assure you that trying to convert Welder would be way out of my league


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Now that's funny right there.



No, not that he would ever pull you away from your faith. I'm pretty dense but even I see that as an impossibility. 

He just seems to have gotten you to use "believe" instead of "fact."


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, not that he would ever pull you away from your faith. I'm pretty dense but even I see that as an impossibility.
> 
> He just seems to have gotten you to use "believe" instead of "fact."



In my own case, I use the word "fact" and "belief" interchangeably because those things I believe ARE fact to me, otherwise I wouldn't believe them.

Now, if it helps me converse with a non-believer more effectively without compromising, then it's a win win IMO.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In my own case, I use the word "fact" and "belief" interchangeably because those things I believe ARE fact to me, otherwise I wouldn't believe them.
> 
> Now, if it helps me converse with a non-believer more effectively without compromising, then it's a win win IMO.



It's a fair point about belief being fact relative to self. Much the same that perception is reality, so to speak. 

I agree that it should keep us from getting wrapped around the axle of what a fact with regards to religion and belief are, so


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's a fair point about belief being fact relative to self. Much the same that perception is reality, so to speak.
> 
> I agree that it should keep us from getting wrapped around the axle of what a fact with regards to religion and belief are, so



Though belief is fact relative to self, it also must be taken one step further acknowledging that God is the truth behind those beliefs and He is the One who enables the belief(faith).

And ultimately,all of that is relative to His sovereign eternal will.This is my belief.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Though belief is fact relative to self, it also must be taken one step further acknowledging that God is the truth behind those beliefs and He is the One who enables the belief(faith).
> 
> And ultimately,all of that is relative to His sovereign eternal will.*This is my belief.*



And this is what keeps me from having any issue at all with what you just said.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 13, 2015)

Welder I forgot to tell you that now that you have started using "this is my belief" etc., the downside is we are going to have a lot less to argue about 
But I'm hoping you are noticing the difference in the responses you are getting. I'm hoping you'll notice that I/we don't have any issues with your PERSONAL beliefs. I think in general we (A/As) believe religion should be exactly that. PERSONAL. 
Not in our laws, schools etc.
Its really just that simple.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 13, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Welder I forgot to tell you that now that you have started using "this is my belief" etc., the downside is we are going to have a lot less to argue about
> But I'm hoping you are noticing the difference in the responses you are getting. I'm hoping you'll notice that I/we don't have any issues with your PERSONAL beliefs. I think in general we (A/As) believe religion should be exactly that. PERSONAL.
> Not in our laws, schools etc.
> Its really just that simple.



Personally I'm fine with them having a religious basis for their morality. If that's what works for them, fine. But it can't be held out as absolute morality because, if that were the case, there would only be one denomination of Christian.


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Personally I'm fine with them having a religious basis for their morality. If that's what works for them, fine. But it can't be held out as absolute morality because, if that were the case, there would only be one denomination of Christian.



I don't know....

It's painfully obvious that they can't agree on morality. They're all over the place.  They'll even point out who is a REAL Christian and who is just calling themselves that.  

It's dangerous when people feel that their personal morality is sanctioned by a god.  What else has the power to turn people's minds off like religion?


----------



## JimD (May 13, 2015)

I believe in God and was raised as a Christian, and I agree with you guys that morality doesnt NECESSARILY come from religion. If you will read the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says there should not be any laws at all. He says this because if people were living right (in tune with the Tao/God) they would always do what is "right" and there would be no need for laws.


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2015)

JimD said:


> I believe in God and was raised as a Christian, and I agree with you guys that morality doesnt NECESSARILY come from religion. If you will read the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says there should not be any laws at all. He says this because if people were living right (in tune with the Tao/God) they would always do what is "right" and there would be no need for laws.



Good point.  It's useful to know what other religions say about morality and it's interesting where they overlap.


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know....
> 
> It's painfully obvious that they can't agree on morality. They're all over the place.  They'll even point out who is a REAL Christian and who is just calling themselves that.
> 
> It's dangerous when people feel that their personal morality is sanctioned by a god.  What else has the power to turn people's minds off like religion?



Didn't you mean to say? :
 I BELIEVE It's dangerous when people feel that their personal morality is sanctioned by a god.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

JimD said:


> I believe in God and was raised as a Christian, and I agree with you guys that morality doesnt NECESSARILY come from religion. If you will read the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu says there should not be any laws at all. He says this because if people were living right (in tune with the Tao/God) they would always do what is "right" and there would be no need for laws.



This is one contradiction or difference I see within Christianity. That being if morality is from God and we all know God by his Creation being without excuse. How is it possible for someone to be "living right" without God?
One view within Christianity is that man is depraved and can't even possibly "live right" without God opening his eyes.
Well if God is needed to open our eyes to "living right" why are we without excuse?
Then there is the other side of the coin that none of us can "live right" and therefore need God's forgiveness. After we ask for forgiveness or are elected then God gives us the Gift of the Holy Spirit to help us "live right" by producing his fruits within us.
The kicker is why do some Christians not "live right" yet some Atheist, Hindus and Tao followers "live right" without God or without the "right" God. One would think following the "wrong" God would lead one astray quicker than not following any God, yet even some Christians think believing in any God is better than not believing at all.
Imagine by John Lennon a world without religious differences, and different countries. A world where people just naturally get along just because it is the right thing to do. A world where we aren't hung up on worldly goods. A world where we forgive our trespassers. A world where we love our enemies. A world where we help each other as nations and as individuals. A world without greed or hunger. Nothing to kill or die for. No need for war.
I can imagine this world is a lot like what Jesus asked us to do. I can imagine other religions ask of this same type of "living right." 
Unlike John, I'm not a dreamer. I don't even see religious nations living without taking others possessions. 

Imagine by John Lennon;
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnlennon/imagine.html


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Personally I'm fine with them having a religious basis for their morality. If that's what works for them, fine. But it can't be held out as absolute morality because, if that were the case, there would only be one denomination of Christian.



Religious-based morality,or even plain old morality, is good for society,but it's not enough.

Jesus said in Matt.5:20:
" For I say unto you, That except your righteousness(morality) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Morality must be done in faith to be accepted of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Religious-based morality,or even plain old morality, is good for society,but it's not enough.
> 
> Jesus said in Matt.5:20:
> " For I say unto you, That except your righteousness(morality) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
> ...



Before that verse it says;
19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

Then after that verse it says;
21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.

Now or after these verses morality continues to keep one out of the Kingdom. Now anger is equal to murder.

What about the "washing?" Am I missing something here?
How important is "living right" as it pertains to entering the Kingdom?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Religious-based morality,or even plain old morality, is good for society,but it's not enough.
> 
> Jesus said in Matt.5:20:
> " For I say unto you, That except your righteousness(morality) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
> ...



I agree that morality is needed for society. I agree it's not enough to live in the Kingdom.
How would you describe what is needed to live in the Kingdom? Do you live in the Kingdom? Is the Kingdom upon us? If none of us are righteous and never can be, why is morality even important for someone living in the Kingdom?
Why even discuss "living right" if it has nothing to do with salvation, election, and living in the Kingdom?


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What about the "washing?" Am I missing something here?
> How important is "living right" as it pertains to entering the Kingdom?



Jesus' whole point was that no one can keep the law perfectly.Then, on topof that, He turns the outward things of the law(murder, adultery, etc.) into  inward things (hatred, lust, etc.), which are still yet more impossible to keep perfectly. 

By showing this He pointed to the need of faith, which is given by God(the washing of regeneration).


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> 1How would you describe what is needed to live in the Kingdom?
> 2Is the Kingdom upon us?
> 3If none of us are righteous and never can be, why is morality even important for someone living in the Kingdom?
> 4Why even discuss "living right" if it has nothing to do with salvation, election, and living in the Kingdom?



1 Faith
2Yes
3We have no righteousness of our own, only the imputed righteousness    given to us.
4"living right" is the result of, not the requirement of..election and living in the kingdom.


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Didn't you mean to say? :
> I BELIEVE It's dangerous when people feel that their personal morality is sanctioned by a god.



There's plenty of proof.  Believe that or not.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Jesus' whole point was that no one can keep the law perfectly.Then, on topof that, He turns the outward things of the law(murder, adultery, etc.) into  inward things (hatred, lust, etc.), which are still yet more impossible to keep perfectly.
> 
> By showing this He pointed to the need of faith, which is given by God(the washing of regeneration).



I agree with you 100%. Now anger is just as bad as murder.
Lust is just as bad as adultery. Without the "washing" we'll never see the Kingdom.
This basic concept is the actual bases of Christianity. None of us are righteous/moral and thus need salvation based on this statement. 
We can't even begin to "live right" without God.

Why then do we continue to argue about morals being form God? Even laws are from God. They were presented to show us why we needed Jesus.
They have served their purpose. 
How can we possibly think depraved Atheist and Hindus can "live right" based on this truth? Righteousness and or works can and never could buy salvation. None of us are good. We actually never had a chance of being good being born humans. That being said again, why keep preaching the origin of morals as being form God?


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree with you 100%. Now anger is just as bad as murder.
> Lust is just as bad as adultery. Without the "washing" we'll never see the Kingdom.
> This basic concept is the actual bases of Christianity. None of us are righteous/moral and thus need salvation based on this statement.
> We can't even begin to "live right" without God.
> ...



That's really sad if you think that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> 1 Faith
> 2Yes
> 3We have no righteousness of our own, only the imputed righteousness    given to us.
> 4"living right" is the result of, not the requirement of..election and living in the kingdom.



That explains why some Christians "live right" and some self appointed christians don't.
What about the Atheist and Hindus? Some of them live right and some don't. Why would God impute his righteousness upon individuals not elected and having not received the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> That's really sad if you think that.



I'm not a dreamer. Can you imagine the world John Lennon imagined with or without a God? A world where people give away to help the poor and sick? A world where nations don't take land and possessions? 
A world where people forgive others? A world without anger and lust?

Let's take Adam out of the picture for me. 
I still can't imagine.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 13, 2015)

Imagine a world where Christians are Christians and Hindus are Hindus. Meaning they follow the teachings of their God. Imagine the small jungle villages and island populations all getting along with or without a belief in a God.
Again, I'm not a dreamer.
I don't see the world being created this way or evolving this way. Freewill or predestination, God knew what Adam would do. He knew our nature. The deity who knew the hairs on the first man he created very well had to know his nature if not the actual event that would be his demise. To not would be like getting into raising Hogs and not realizing they would stink.


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would God impute his righteousness upon individuals not elected and having not received the Holy Spirit?



He doesn't.
Only the elect, and they were chosen before the creation of the world.


----------



## welderguy (May 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There's plenty of proof.  Believe that or not.



FOUL! You can't just say "there's plenty of proof"and not back it up with valid proof. That's not how it works in here.remember?


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> FOUL! You can't just say "there's plenty of proof"and not back it up with valid proof. That's not how it works in here.remember?



Google "atrocities in the name of god".

I'm not gonna do your homework for you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know....
> 
> It's painfully obvious that they can't agree on morality. They're all over the place.  They'll even point out who is a REAL Christian and who is just calling themselves that.
> 
> It's dangerous when people feel that their personal morality is sanctioned by a god.  What else has the power to turn people's minds off like religion?



I didn't say I agreed with the results, but who am I to denigrate the source of their morality. Ours to them is just as specious as theirs is to us. 

In the end, like you say, it's all relative anyway. 

Personally, I'd rather spend the time searching for the commonalities we do agree on, get them settle, like murder being bad (the reason doesn't matter), and then move on to the less foundational aspects, like why they feel I shouldn't be able to buy a beer while they're in church. Maybe it's reasoned enough to get me to agree. "God says..." is a guaranteed way to get me to tune out, though.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I didn't say I agreed with the results, but who am I to denigrate the source of their morality. Ours to them is just as specious as theirs is to us.
> 
> In the end, like you say, it's all relative anyway.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather spend the time searching for the commonalities we do agree on, get them settle, like murder being bad (the reason doesn't matter), and then move on to the less foundational aspects, like why they feel I shouldn't be able to buy a beer while they're in church. Maybe it's reasoned enough to get me to agree. "God says..." is a guaranteed way to get me to tune out, though.



No need to denigrate.  Just point out that the basis for the beliefs aren't grounded in reason.  If someone says at the end of the day "I don't care about reason" then I suppose we will have to work around them somehow.  If enough people begin to rely on reason as opposed to superstition or tradition to make decisions then you won't have to worry about Blue Laws or the impediment of scientific advancement anymore.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No need to denigrate.  Just point out that the basis for the beliefs aren't grounded in reason.  If someone says at the end of the day "I don't care about reason" then I suppose we will have to work around them somehow.  If enough people begin to rely on reason as opposed to superstition or tradition to make decisions then you won't have to worry about Blue Laws or the impediment of scientific advancement anymore.



You'll have to work around it anyway since it may not be grounded in the same reason yours is. That doesn't go away. 

Even if you remove religion there is no such thing as an absolute objective morality and that horse has been beaten repeatedly.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You'll have to work around it anyway since it may not be grounded in the same reason yours is. That doesn't go away.
> 
> Even if you remove religion there is no such thing as an absolute objective morality and that horse has been beaten repeatedly.



I can't see reason getting someone to a talking donkey.  That's a large part of the problem handled.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I can't see reason getting someone to a talking donkey.  That's a large part of the problem handled.





> reason
> [ree-zuh n]
> 
> Synonyms
> ...



You're getting wrapped around the axle thinking that reason only applies to fact.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're getting wrapped around the axle thinking that reason only applies to fact.



I was using the word in this way:



_reason
noun rea·son \ËˆrÄ“-zÉ™n\

: a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way

: a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc.

: the power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

Full Definition of REASON
1
a :  a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b :  a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>


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

3
archaic :  treatment that affords satisfaction_

None of this will get one to the conclusion of a talking donkey.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I was using the word in this way:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's a reason why definitions are numbered. The most common ones appear towards the top. Which means that you're arguing based on the less preferred definitions rather than the one that actually applies to the situation. 

It's not that it can't be done, just that this isn't the right place based on the first definition.


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

Even the atheists can't agree.
Huh.
Imagine that.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Even the atheists can't agree.
> Huh.
> Imagine that.



But we use reason to discuss it.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's a reason why definitions are numbered. The most common ones appear towards the top. Which means that you're arguing based on the less preferred definitions rather than the one that actually applies to the situation.
> 
> It's not that it can't be done, just that this isn't the right place based on the first definition.



See the definition of the word "be".  Do you use the first one more than the second?  And which dictionary are you using?

I should have included the definition of "reason" as a verb.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Even the atheists can't agree.
> Huh.
> Imagine that.



You're miscategorizing me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> See the definition of the word "be".  Do you use the first one more than the second?  And which dictionary are you using?
> 
> I should have included the definition of "reason" as a verb.



Yeah, actually I do. 

And Merriam-Webster in this particular word instance. Which is usually where I go to for these kinds of discussions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, actually I do.
> 
> And Merriam-Webster in this particular word instance. Which is usually where I go to for these kinds of discussions.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be




I use them at about the same rate.

I go to Merriam-Webster first but there are other dictionaries that are not organized the same way.


Anyway,  I was using reason in the sense "deduced by reason" as opposed to "this is the reason I did that".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I use them at about the same rate.
> 
> I go to Merriam-Webster first but there are other dictionaries that are not organized the same way.
> 
> ...



I doubt it, if you consider the conjugations.


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

I categorized you as an agnostic until you said this:



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> "God says..." is a guaranteed way to get me to tune out, though.




If you leave open the possibility of the existence of God, why would you make that statement? Sounds kinda contradictory to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I categorized you as an agnostic until you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a fair observation. I do leave the possibility of his existence open, but quoting the Bible to me (which is where you get your "God says") has long been established as contradictory to itself, and has resulted in many denominations from the interpretations of what is supposed to be an absolute text and, not least of which, has been written and highly edited by man himself.

The only way you "know" the words of God is from the Bible. Everything else is feelings you've had yourself and how you've interpreted them, which I put much more stock in.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I categorized you as an agnostic until you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm Agnostic and feel the same way as Stripper.
Its not contradictory at all.
"God says" means God has been proven to exist.
Leaving open the POSSIBILITY he exists basically only means it hasn't been proven that he doesn't.
As Striperr pointed out, what you really mean is, is "the Bible says".
The existence of the Bible does not equate to the existence of God any more than the existence of Harry Potter books equates to the existence of Harry Potter.


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm Agnostic and feel the same way as Stripper.
> Its not contradictory at all.
> "God says" means God has been proven to exist.
> Leaving open the POSSIBILITY he exists basically only means it hasn't been proven that he doesn't.
> ...



It just doesn't make sense to me that you guys say"I'm open to the possibility of the existence of God"in one breath, then in another say "I totally reject all that the bible says concerning this possible God.

Seems to me that you would either be totally open or totally rejecting, with no middle ground picking and choosing.That's how I see it.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me that you guys say"I'm open to the possibility of the existence of God"in one breath, then in another say "I totally reject all that the bible says concerning this possible God.
> 
> Seems to me that you would either be totally open or totally rejecting, with no middle ground picking and choosing.That's how I see it.


The Bible is one subject.
The existence of God is another subject.
Lets try this - if one hour from now a discovery is made of ancient Church texts saying that they were going to completely fabricate the Bible to get people to follow Christianity..... would you then become an Atheist? 
Or would you still believe in God?


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> The Bible is one subject.
> The existence of God is another subject.
> Lets try this - if one hour from now a discovery is made of ancient Church texts saying that they were going to completely fabricate the Bible to get people to follow Christianity..... would you then become an Atheist?
> Or would you still believe in God?



I'm trying to be objective but honestly, based on what has taken place inside me (which to me is more than ample proof, even though I can't make another person understand it), I would answer no I would not become an atheist.I would believe the spirit of truth inside me.

I don't expect you to understand that and that's ok.

That's a very good challenging question BTW.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm trying to be objective but honestly, based on what has taken place inside me (which to me is more than ample proof, even though I can't make another person understand it), I would answer no I would not become an atheist.I would believe the spirit of truth inside me.
> 
> I don't expect you to understand that and that's ok.
> 
> That's a very good challenging question BTW.


Actually that was the answer I expected.
But here's my point -


> It just doesn't make sense to me that you guys say"I'm open to the possibility of the existence of God"in one breath, then in another say "I totally reject all that the bible says concerning this possible God.


You just separated God and the Bible into two subjects just like I/we do.
The Bible can be completely man made and not one word of it true but it could still be possible that God exists.
That's how we can reject the Bible but leave open the possibility of God.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If enough people begin to rely on reason as opposed to superstition or tradition to make decisions then you won't have to worry about Blue Laws or the impediment of scientific advancement anymore.


Reason tells me that relying upon the scientific method is superstition. 

Superstition
1
a :  a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually that was the answer I expected.
> But here's my point -
> 
> You just separated God and the Bible into two subjects just like I/we do.
> ...



It's not quite that simple.See the reason you can not just separate God from the bible is because the bible is "the Word", which is Jesus.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."

I played along with your hypothetical senario, but in reality it can never be anything but hypothetical in my belief because God and His Word are one.They are intertwined.

To use a little simple logic,(if you truly are open to the possibility of God), wouldn't it be assumed that He would have some form of revealing Himself to His creation? If so, why is it so hard to believe that the bible is just that?
"


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's not quite that simple.See the reason you can not just separate God from the bible is because the bible is "the Word", which is Jesus.
> "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..."
> 
> I played along with your hypothetical senario, but in reality it can never be anything but hypothetical in my belief because God and His Word are one.They are intertwined.
> ...





> It's not quite that simple.


Actually it is just that simple. Its just not that simple to you because you believe -


> you can not just separate God from the bible is because the bible is "the Word", which is Jesus.


And the odd thing is you believe it because MEN said this what God told them to do.
And yet when the mother murders her child because God told her to you don't believe it. 
You may not realize it but what you are saying is God existence is dependent on the Bible being true.
Even though you already said you would still believe in God even if the Bible wasn't true.
Those two things contradict each other.


> To use a little simple logic,(if you truly are open to the possibility of God), wouldn't it be assumed that He would have some form of revealing Himself to His creation? If so, why is it so hard to believe that the bible is just that?


Here's what simple logic tells me -
Out of all the ways a God could reveal himself to not just me but to the entire world, without question, no gray areas, no subject to interpretation, no need for faith, no need to believe in miracles, NOT INOLVING MEN, nothing that can be proven wrong, the Bible is a pretty poor way of doing it.
Men write books.
A God can materialize and leave no doubt or mystery.
You know as well as I do how the Bible was created. Totally man-like. Completely unGod-like.


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Actually it is just that simple. Its just not that simple to you because you believe -
> 
> And the odd thing is you believe it because MEN said this what God told them to do.
> And yet when the mother murders her child because God told her to you don't believe it.
> ...



You have it backwards.Instead of God's existence depending on the truth of the bible, rather the truth of the bible is dependant on the existence of God.

Incidentally,when did God ever tell a woman to murder her child?


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's what simple logic tells me -
> Out of all the ways a God could reveal himself to not just me but to the entire world, without question, no gray areas, no subject to interpretation, no need for faith, no need to believe in miracles, NOT INOLVING MEN, nothing that can be proven wrong, the Bible is a pretty poor way of doing it.
> Men write books.
> A God can materialize and leave no doubt or mystery.
> You know as well as I do how the Bible was created. Totally man-like. Completely unGod-like.



To me,it's absolute genius how God made the bible.It's like a beautiful tapestry woven together with every fiber interlocking together.And woven throughout the entire tapestry is a single golden thread,which is Jesus.
It's specially designed so that some understand,yet equally designed so it is hidden from others.There are many,many prophesies of which the majority have come to pass already with detailed accuracy.
It has survived multiple attempts at destruction and banishment.I don't believe there's any other writing that has caused more contraversy in the history of mankind.You have to wonder why.
I believe the basic reason is the opposition of good and evil.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> To me,it's absolute genius how God made the bible.It's like a beautiful tapestry woven together with every fiber interlocking together.And woven throughout the entire tapestry is a single golden thread,which is Jesus.
> It's specially designed so that some understand,yet equally designed so it is hidden from others.There are many,many prophesies of which the majority have come to pass already with detailed accuracy.
> It has survived multiple attempts at destruction and banishment.I don't believe there's any other writing that has caused more contraversy in the history of mankind.You have to wonder why.
> I believe the basic reason is the opposition of good and evil.





> It's like a beautiful tapestry woven together with every fiber interlocking together.


Well except for all those contradictions we point out every day.
And lets not mention that it took MAN 1600 years of trying to fit the pieces together, rejecting some writings, approving others, changes here, changes there and yet still the people who believe in it don't even agree on what it says.


> I don't believe there's any other writing that has caused more contraversy in the history of mankind.You have to wonder why.


I don't have to wonder why. Its because its the opposite of this -


> with every fiber interlocking together.


Over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, Welder. 
You guys prove every day that the fibers don't interlock together.
God wasn't capable of writing a book that you all could agree on?


----------



## welderguy (May 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Well except for all those contradictions we point out every day.
> And lets not mention that it took MAN 1600 years of trying to fit the pieces together, rejecting some writings, approving others, changes here, changes there and yet still the people who believe in it don't even agree on what it says.
> 
> I don't have to wonder why. Its because its the opposite of this -
> ...



None of the flaws that you point out are the fault or failure of God.Man is the one that has made a seemingly mess out of things.But, don't let the mess fool you because God's master plan is working out exactly the way He said it would.
Believe it or not, the devil hates the bible more than anyone and he will lie, cheat, confuse, ridicule, and anything else to try to turn people away.And he's doing a pretty good job of it, as we see everyday.Don't you think God accounted for all that though? I do.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> None of the flaws that you point out are the fault or failure of God.Man is the one that has made a seemingly mess out of things.But, don't let the mess fool you because God's master plan is working out exactly the way He said it would.
> Believe it or not, the devil hates the bible more than anyone and he will lie, cheat, confuse, ridicule, and anything else to try to turn people away.And he's doing a pretty good job of it, as we see everyday.Don't you think God accounted for all that though? I do.





> Man is the one that has made a seemingly mess out of things.


So mans ability to make a mess out of things is more powerful than God's ability to make things perfectly clear to anyone and everyone?


> Believe it or not, the devil hates the bible more than anyone and he will lie, cheat, confuse, ridicule, and anything else to try to turn people away.And he's doing a pretty good job of it, as we see everyday


Or he's just sitting back sipping a cold drink and watching the Bible fracture you guys into a million (well 30,000ish) pieces. A timeless battle plan is to divide and conquer. You guys have been dividing yourselves over the Bible since it was written. Why would he hate the Bible? Seems to me its making his job easier.


> Don't you think God accounted for all that though?


No. First God would have to be proven to exist before it can be claimed that he's accounting for anything.


> And he's doing a pretty good job of it, as we see everyday


Or the devil doesn't exist and to continue to blame him means Christianity is doing a pretty good job of shooting itself in the foot.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2015)

I do believe the Bible is the word of God but I don't understand why we needed a council of men to tell us it is. Paul wrote his letters/epistles through the inspiration of God as did the other apostles and prophets.
Why did it take a council of men to "choose" which books were included? Why didn't God pick just one man for this task? Why do some Churches have more God inspired books such as the Catholics and Mormons?
Does God still inspire writings today? If not, why? What about the Dead Sea scrolls? Is it possible God enlightens us at different times in man's existence?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You have it backwards.Instead of God's existence depending on the truth of the bible, rather the truth of the bible is dependant on the existence of God.
> 
> Incidentally,when did God ever tell a woman to murder her child?


Here's 3 quick ones -


> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html?_s=PM:LAW





> http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents





> http://www.rationalresponders.com/f...adio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/3689


So just because they said God told them to do this does that mean God actually did?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I do believe the Bible is the word of God but I don't understand why we needed a council of men to tell us it is. Paul wrote his letters/epistles through the inspiration of God as did the other apostles and prophets.
> Why did it take a council of men to "choose" which books were included? Why didn't God pick just one man for this task? Why do some Churches have more God inspired books such as the Catholics and Mormons?
> Does God still inspire writings today? If not, why? What about the Dead Sea scrolls? Is it possible God enlightens us at different times in man's existence?


And -
Why did it take 1600 years to accomplish?
Why did God need to use men at all?
Why is it subject to interpretation?
Why couldn't God miracle it to appear in the language of whoever is reading it so nothing was ever lost in translation?
Why did God inscribe the tablets of the 10 commandments himself but used men to write the Bible?
Why Why Why?
When you try to force God into the picture none of it makes sense.
When you put man in the picture it makes perfect sense.
Why?


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Here's 3 quick ones -
> 
> 
> 
> So just because they said God told them to do this does that mean God actually did?



NO.

That would be contradictory to His commandment.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> NO.
> 
> That would be contradictory to His commandment.


You mean the commandment that men told you was God's commandment?
Ya know, just like how these women told us that killing their kids was God's commandment?
You are picking what you like and rejecting what you don't like. And you have no clue if either of them is true or not.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible God enlightens us at different times in man's existence?



Art, at no “time” has anything material (what God requires, how God acts, God’s favor or disfavor, etc.) ever changed.  In loving kindness to His people He reveals only that of Himself which they need, and can withstand without being destroyed.  If you accept that, and include that in your consideration of all things spiritual, after some time the use of the word “why” will surely become far less prevalent in your posts.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You mean the commandment that men told you was God's commandment?
> Ya know, just like how these women told us that killing their kids was God's commandment?
> You are picking what you like and rejecting what you don't like. And you have no clue if either of them is true or not.



I understand the point you are trying to make, even though you and I both know murder is wrong(I sure hope).

The question is why do we know it's wrong.Is the answer the same for bothof us? And why wasn't the answer the same for the murderer of the baby?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I understand the point you are trying to make, even though you and I both know murder is wrong(I sure hope).
> 
> The question is why do we know it's wrong.Is the answer the same for bothof us? And why wasn't the answer the same for the murderer of the baby?





> you and I both know murder is wrong(I sure hope).


Yes I do know murder is wrong.
That's why it amazes me how you guys can justify The Flood.


> And why wasn't the answer the same for the murderer of the baby?


Maybe they take the Bible literally. Its chock full of murder. Its just not called murder so maybe they didn't realize what they were doing was actually murder.


> I understand the point you are trying to make,


And I wasn't _trying_ to make a point. The FACTS I laid out made the point for me.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes I do know murder is wrong.



Walt, I'd like to ask you a very personal question if I can.

Have you ever done something really bad, knowing it was wrong, that no one ever found out about? If so, did it cause you to weep and agonize inside because you knew you'd done wrong? Did it make you hate yourself for doing it and wish there were some way you could go back and undo it?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Walt, I'd like to ask you a very personal question if I can.
> 
> Have you ever done something really bad, knowing it was wrong, that no one ever found out about? If so, did it cause you to weep and agonize inside because you knew you'd done wrong? Did it make you hate yourself for doing it and wish there were some way you could go back and undo it?


Sure have.


----------



## JimD (May 15, 2015)

Question about "murder". Was it murder in the OT when Gods prophets such as Moses or  Elijah killed people, or when David, Gods favorite killed people? I'm not referring to killing people in battles.

Is it murder if there is a credible threat against a loved one. For instance a loved one witnesses a crime and testifys. The drug dealers threaten to kill my loved one and have killed before and have the ability to carry out the threat.  Is it murder if I pro actively handle the situation?? What would David or any of his Mighty Men do in this situation???

Nehemiah 4:14 Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord who is great and terrible, and Fight for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure have.



Then you know what I'm saying when I say some people have a conscience for sin.
But there are others who do not.They may show sadness because they are caught or when there are consequences.I guess that would fall under the heading of morals but it's not necessarily evidence of a conscience that's wounded because of their sin.

Morals are not enough.There must be a conscience that's affected by right and wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

JimD said:


> Question about "murder". Was it murder in the OT when Gods prophets such as Moses or  Elijah killed people, or when David, Gods favorite killed people? I'm not referring to killing people in battles.
> 
> Is it murder if there is a credible threat against a loved one. For instance a loved one witnesses a crime and testifys. The drug dealers threaten to kill my loved one and have killed before and have the ability to carry out the threat.  Is it murder if I pro actively handle the situation?? What would David or any of his Mighty Men do in this situation???
> 
> Nehemiah 4:14 Be not ye afraid of them: remember the Lord who is great and terrible, and Fight for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses.


Murder is basically a legal term to describe the circumstances of killing someone.
So in this scenario -


> For instance a loved one witnesses a crime and testifys. The drug dealers threaten to kill my loved one and have killed before and have the ability to carry out the threat.  Is it murder if I pro actively handle the situation??


I would think legally yes you would/could be guilty of murder.
They threatened but took no action to carry out the threat.
Of course it all depends on the jury


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Then you know what I'm saying when I say some people have a conscience for sin.
> But there are others who do not.They may show sadness because they are caught or when there are consequences.I guess that would fall under the heading of morals but it's not necessarily evidence of a conscience that's wounded because of their sin.
> 
> Morals are not enough.There must be a conscience that's affected by right and wrong.


I THINK I agree with you but Im not sure.
Except for your use of sin. That's really only a Christian term for what you believe to be right or wrong.
Same thing with morals. That's also a word used to describe what a group of people or even just an individual believe to be right or wrong.
And even right and wrong are not the same depending on where you are and what you believe.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I THINK I agree with you but Im not sure.
> Except for your use of sin. That's really only a Christian term for what you believe to be right or wrong.
> Same thing with morals. That's also a word used to describe what a group of people or even just an individual believe to be right or wrong.
> And even right and wrong are not the same depending on where you are and what you believe.



Why do you suppose some people have remorse for their wrongdoings, even when they don't get caught, while others have no remorse?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why do you suppose some people have remorse for their wrongdoings, even when they don't get caught, while others have no remorse?



Evolution. Guilt is a trait that is tested with and mutated just like hair color, and visual acuity. 

Guilt is a long term benefit to society, where absence benefits the individual now, possibly to the detriment of the whole down the line. 

Which one is favored by the system is still being determined, but the one with the greatest advantage, without regard to consequence, will win out. That may mean we trade long term benefit for short term advantage and cause our own extinction, but we're the first species in history that has had both the ability to understand, and the tools to prevent, our own demise. 

So the end result is obscured.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Evolution. Guilt is a trait that is tested with and mutated just like hair color, and visual acuity.
> 
> Guilt is a long term benefit to society, where absence benefits the individual now, possibly to the detriment of the whole down the line.
> 
> ...



With Christianity we can cast all of our guilt, sin, and burden on Jesus. We're not suppose to worry with such things. Faith in Jesus removes the yoke of sin.
We can cast our cares, burdens, anxieties, and fears on the Lord.
Christianity can help us overcome our evolutional traits. It can help us overcome our animalistic instincts.


----------



## JimD (May 15, 2015)

Walt, I don't care about the legalities. I'm asking this mainly to the Christians posting in the thread. I do not view my scenario as murder and know what I would do. I believe most fellow believers of God would disagree with me however.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> With Christianity we can cast all of our guilt, sin, and burden on Jesus. We're not suppose to worry with such things. Faith in Jesus removes the yoke of sin.
> We can cast our cares, burdens, anxieties, and fears on the Lord.
> Christianity can help us overcome our evolutional traits. It can help us overcome our animalistic instincts.



So can basic humanity. But I digress. 

Are you saying that faith in Jesus, alone and not a "good life," is the only metric? 

If the goal is to also get you to behave better then guilt is built into that. You're supposed to feel the sting when it happens, and carry it forward to remind yourself to be better.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt, I don't care about the legalities. I'm asking this mainly to the Christians posting in the thread. I do not view my scenario as murder and know what I would do. I believe most fellow believers of God would disagree with me however.



Is the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder;" or, "Thou shalt not kill?"


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Evolution. Guilt is a trait that is tested with and mutated just like hair color, and visual acuity.
> 
> Guilt is a long term benefit to society, where absence benefits the individual now, possibly to the detriment of the whole down the line.
> 
> ...



I'm not asking the question as how it affects society.Strictly on a personal basis.What makes some people have guilt for their wrongdoings, even when no one else knows?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

JimD said:


> Walt, I don't care about the legalities. I'm asking this mainly to the Christians posting in the thread. I do not view my scenario as murder and know what I would do. I believe most fellow believers of God would disagree with me however.


Sorry about that!
I do view your scenario as murder and would do the same thing you would.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I'm not asking the question as how it affects society.Strictly on a personal basis.What makes some people have guilt for their wrongdoings, even when no one else knows?



Evolution. There was an advantage to being well liked in society when we were just forming large groups. If you do bad things and show no remorse, you get kicked out of the tribe and likely die. 

That guilt made you show remorse and, likely, kept you from repeating the same behavior, so your genes were passed down. 

It's the same thing that allowed the wild wolf to be domesticated into dogs. A few of them were less aggressive than their packmates and they reaped the advantage of humans feeding them and taking care of them so they reproduced more and with more success. Without humans to give back to them that less aggressive, and in some even remorseful, behavior might not have been an advantage. 

Similarly, back to our neanderthal roots, being nice and being remorseful would have just allowed a more aggressive neanderthal to out compete you for food, shelter, and reproductive rights. 

Without the evolution of guilt and social awareness we'd still be lone hunters and gatherers and society would have failed before it got going. Same with now. Aggression benefits the individual right now. Guilt benefits the individual, if the right society is in place to reward it, but society at large more by placing having the individual police itself. If they do, then their skills and awards are added to the collective. If not then they are punished by that society, perhaps even with death. If society fails to hold up their end of the deal, like we are failing to do now, then there seems to be an advantage in being animalistic and showing no guilt for transgressions, so it's encouraged.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Why do you suppose some people have remorse for their wrongdoings, even when they don't get caught, while others have no remorse?


That's a complicated question that involves a lot of factors.
The simplified answer is that's how their brain is wired.
And that too involves a lot of factors including the chemical makeup of their brain.
For example I drive over the speed limit every day. Don't even give it a second thought.
Yet at the same time I can feel bad for other wrong things I have done.
Even though both are wrong.
I know Im not really answering your question but its a really complicated question.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a complicated question that involves a lot of factors.
> The simplified answer is that's how their brain is wired.
> And that too involves a lot of factors including the chemical makeup of their brain.
> For example I drive over the speed limit every day. Don't even give it a second thought.
> ...



I do too but because I don't think that I am any more dangerous at 75 than at 60.  I don't text or eat and avoid distraction while I drive on the highway.  I drive slower when I'm tired.  

Basically, I don't think I'm being harmful.  That's a priority.

Where does that impulse come from?  Upbringing, information, empathy.  Now, Welder, you can say that all those things come from God as long as you preface it with "I believe".


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2015)

When I have to make decisions about myself and family I usually revert back to my human animal self. In general I can usually think with my Christian spiritual self. I know right from wrong and how I should react as a Christian but for some reason in a crisis regarding me I revert back to a man and lie, steal, and cheat if it benefits my family and me. It's easy to say how we should live vs how we actually live when the shoe is on the other foot.

One example is on the Political Forum in the discussion on the decline of Christianity. The discussion went the way of; if a Christian should be Liberal or Conservative in the topic of illegal aliens. As an American, I'm against it as it interferes with my families needs. As a Christian shouldn't I give the man who takes my coat also give him my shirt? Christianity teaches me to be humble and meek. My human animal self tells me to take what I want to feed and shelter my family at all cost.

It's like being a Christian goes 100% against being a man. Maybe that's the concept Jesus was after. Maybe that is what the Bible is teaching. To become a new spiritual person and try not to be a man of the flesh.
Try not to steal, cheat, lust, hate, and to love & forgive. This goes 100% against my life in the flesh.

It's easy to say as a Christian what others should do but usually I don't practice what I preach when it comes to myself. Mainly out of fear and or greed, I revert back to the human animal. Sure I feel guilty afterwards, but not during the fight or flight mode.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> When I have to make decisions about myself and family I usually revert back to my human animal self. In general I can usually think with my Christian self. I know right form wrong and how I should react as a Christian but for some reason in a crisis regarding me I revert back to a man and lie, steal, and cheat if it benefits my family and me. It's easy to say how we should live vs how we actually live when the shoe is on the other foot.
> One example is on the Political Forum in the discussion on the decline of Christianity. The discussion went the way of if a Christian should be Liberal or Conservative in the topic of illegal aliens. As an American, I'm against it as it interferes with my families needs. As a Christian shouldn't I give the man who takes my coat also give him my shirt. Christianity teaches me to be humble and meek. My human animal self tells me to take what I want to feed and shelter my family at all cost.
> It's like being a Christian goes 100% against being a man. Maybe that's the concept Jesus was after. Maybe that is what the Bible is teaching. To become a new spiritual person and try not to be a man of the flesh.
> Try not to steal, cheat, lust, hate, and to love & forgive. This goes 100% against my life in the flesh.
> *It's easy to say as a Christian what others should do but usually I don't practice what I preach when it comes to myself*. Mainly out of fear and or greed, I revert back to the human animal. Sure I feel guilty afterwards, but not during the fight or flight mode.



You're far from alone. 

That's why I find the idea of absolute religious morality to be a contradiction in terms. 

But the knowledge that you, alone, are responsible for your behavior is both liberating and crushingly heavy. 

"The devil made me do it in a moment of weakness," is a lot easier to say than, "I made a really bad call and it's all my fault."


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Art, at no “time” has anything material (what God requires, how God acts, God’s favor or disfavor, etc.) ever changed.  In loving kindness to His people He reveals only that of Himself which they need, and can withstand without being destroyed.  If you accept that, and include that in your consideration of all things spiritual, after some time the use of the word “why” will surely become far less prevalent in your posts.



I wish I could do that but the more I seek, the more I find. I'm beginning to see knowledge as a hindrance.
I want to know why God only reveals what I need to know at different times in my destiny. Why doesn't he give me all of the knowledge at once? Why does he give me different knowledge of the Bible than you? If what you say is true then we shouldn't knock other's beliefs as God revealed to them what they needed to know. God has revealed different paths for different people. He made some Jews and he made some Atheists. He made some Protestants and he made some Catholic. He did this by revealing knowledge to each of us as needed.

I must also ask why some people seek more than others. Some are happy to just accept what they learned about God as a child while attending their Parents denomination. They don't delve into the realm of Scriptural study very deeply. Is it because God knew it might confuse them? Is it because they are not interested in the deeper spiritual side of Christianity?


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I do too but because I don't think that I am any more dangerous at 75 than at 60.  I don't text or eat and avoid distraction while I drive on the highway.  I drive slower when I'm tired.
> 
> Basically, I don't think I'm being harmful.  That's a priority.
> 
> Where does that impulse come from?  Upbringing, information, empathy.  Now, Welder, you can say that all those things come from God as long as you preface it with "I believe".



I do believe the knowledge of good and evil comes from God.

I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do believe the knowledge of good and evil comes from God.
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious.



I was being serious, but thanks for putting me down. 

Ya'll have fun. I'm done.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do believe the knowledge of good and evil comes from God.
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious.



Why would you not think he was serious? Do you see any comparisons between animals and man? 
Have you ever seen a man evolve from self to spirit? A man getting farther & farther away from being an animal and closer & closer to becoming a spirit?
You can put what Striper was saying into a Christian prospective. A man full of hate and greed becoming more and more loving and forgiving as he ages in his spirit and pays less attention to his flesh.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do believe the knowledge of good and evil comes from God.
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious.





> I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.


Its completely obvious that it comes from us. We determine what is good and what is evil.
That's why it changes, that's why its different from society to society, that's why its different from person to person.


> I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious


I think your calling evolution a crutch is a tip off about your understanding of evolution.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

Wow.That went downhill fast.
Striper I didn't mean to offend you.I honestly halfway thought you were joking.I value your opinion even when I do think it's nonsense.

Maybe I should have used a different choice of words.

Sorry


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Wow.That went downhill fast.
> Striper I didn't mean to offend you.I honestly halfway thought you were joking.I value your opinion even when I do think it's nonsense.
> 
> Maybe I should have used a different choice of words.
> ...



Perhaps, if you think you misused the word the first time, you shouldn't DOUBLE DOWN on it. 

I came back to see if this was a genuine apology or at least a clearing of the air, but nope. More insults. 

That's okay, though. I don't have to come in here anymore, or speak my mind on things so you have an additional viewpoint to discuss, so I won't any more.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Its completely obvious that it comes from us. We determine what is good and what is evil.
> That's why it changes, that's why its different from society to society, that's why its different from person to person.
> 
> I think your calling evolution a crutch is a tip off about your understanding of evolution.



I don't think he was calling evolution in general a crutch but Striper's use of the evolution of guilt. He can't see behaviors as being evolutionary. I'm assuming he doesn't think behavior can be learned either.
Even the domestication of animals didn't help as an example.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I do believe the knowledge of good and evil comes from God.
> 
> I'm trying to understand where you guys believe it comes from.I think the evolution crutch  that Striper put forth is nonsense IMO if he was even serious.


There are sciences dedicated to the study of evolutionary traits. Their work is backed up with research and results. 
There is no crutch needed with evolution because it is testable and provable.

Now on the other hand introducing into every conversation an unknowable,invisible super buddy that is neither testable or provable...well that is pretty much the best example of a crutch that anyone could devise.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> There are sciences dedicated to the study of evolutionary traits. Their work is backed up with research and results.
> There is no crutch needed with evolution because it is testable and provable.
> 
> Now on the other hand introducing into every conversation an unknowable,invisible super buddy that is neither testable or provable...well that is pretty much the best example of a crutch that anyone could devise.



Indeed.


----------



## hummerpoo (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish I could do that but the more I seek, the more I find. I'm beginning to see knowledge as a hindrance.
> I want to know why God only reveals what I need to know at different times in my destiny. Why doesn't he give me all of the knowledge at once? Why does he give me different knowledge of the Bible than you? If what you say is true then we shouldn't knock other's beliefs as God revealed to them what they needed to know. God has revealed different paths for different people. He made some Jews and he made some Atheists. He made some Protestants and he made some Catholic. He did this by revealing knowledge to each of us as needed.
> 
> I must also ask why some people seek more than others. Some are happy to just accept what they learned about God as a child while attending their Parents denomination. They don't delve into the realm of Scriptural study very deeply. Is it because God knew it might confuse them? Is it because they are not interested in the deeper spiritual side of Christianity?



Although I intended my statement more generally, your taking it more individually is not at all inappropriate.

Since we are somewhat off topic here, I will just recommend 3 passages which address most of the points you brought up:

Rm. 14:1-15:3 (don't miss vss. 7 & 8)
Col. 1:9-12
Heb. 5:11-6:3

I recall it taking a long time for the Romans passage to sink in for me.


----------



## JimD (May 15, 2015)

Artfuldodger,

IMHO, its a little bit of all you asked.

Most people do not dig into the Bible, or really seek truth. I respect the atheists that Ive known and on this forum, in that they actually question things. 

I grew up in church. A large portion of my family were/are in the ministry. There were always things that just sat wrong with me, from when I was little. I couldnt put them into words at the time, but for me, it never worked. Things like everyone raving about how they cant wait to get to heaven and then they are afraid of dying. That makes no sense if you really believe in heaven, as the muslims certainly arent afraid of dying! Or a big fat preacher railing against "sin" and he is 100lbs. over weight and a glutton. Or like I referred to in another thread, where I put a link to The Christian Warrior book. Preachers quoting Romans 13 as a reason to blindly follow the govt. is pure CensoredCensored. If that was the case then the Germans should all have supported hilter because God put him in power.

How many Christians have acutually read the Bible all the way through? Until I read the entire Bible, all I knew was what I was taught. Many of the things the church teaches are not correct when I read what I read in the Bible, or at least I certainly dont agree with their interpretation and probably never will. 

Questioning things, and searching for "truths" in places other than Christianity has made my faith in God even stronger however, has made me much less "religious." I also do believe that God/Source/Spirit reveals to us what we are ready for, when we are ready for it. That is part of faith.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> There are sciences dedicated to the study of evolutionary traits. Their work is backed up with research and results.
> There is no crutch needed with evolution because it is testable and provable.


Is it a law? if not, why not?


bullethead said:


> Now on the other hand introducing into every conversation an unknowable,invisible super buddy that is neither testable or provable...well that is pretty much the best example of a crutch that anyone could devise.


Or it is true that the God of the Bible does exist and Christians have known the truth for quite some time now.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Is it a law? if not, why not?
> 
> Or it is true that the God of the Bible does exist and Christians have known the truth for quite some time now.


Scientifically speaking it is a Theory. It is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 
You may not believe it and I doubt if it were "law" you would believe it. But when gravity was "just" a theory you still stayed planted on the ground whether you believed it or not or whether it is law or not...it is fact none the less. Evolutionary traits are no different.

By your standards if Christians know the truth then the Jews and Muslims have got it right also. Add a couple dozen more religions in there too. The Christian truth is not at all exclusive.
Unable to be tested and impossible to prove leaves religious claims neither Theory or Law but one heck of a rickity crutch.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2015)

The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1964) famously wrote "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," and the field of ecology is no exception to this broadly-embraced principle. To study ecology without an understanding of evolutionary theory is to watch a sporting event without first learning the rules — players run, points are scored, whistles shrill, but the guiding principles underlying these events remain a mystery. With an understanding of the rules, however, even the smallest intricacies of the game can be appreciated, even loved. So it is with ecology: Evolution provides a canon by which we may better understand the interactions of organisms with their environments. In this section, we define evolution as it is understood to modern biology and as it applies to ecology.

Evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When living organisms reproduce, they pass on to their progeny a collection of traits. These traits may be tangible and obvious, such as the patterns in a butterfly's wing or the number of scales on a crocodile, but they also include characteristics as relatively anonymous as the sequence of nucleotide bases that make up an organism's DNA. In fact, when we talk about evolutionary inheritance, the latter is what we are actually referring to: the transfer of genetic sequences from one generation to the next. When particular genetic sequences change in a population (e.g., via mutation) and these changes are inherited across successive generations, this is the stuff of evolution.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Christian truth is not at all exclusive.
> Unable to be tested and impossible to prove leaves religious claims neither Theory or Law but one heck of a rickity crutch.



....until you die.

that's when all the theories and laws and crutches don't really seem to matter anymore and we are all faced with our reality.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ....until you die.
> 
> that's when all the theories and laws and crutches don't really seem to matter anymore and we are all faced with our reality.



When you die you will be dead. That is the only sure thing.
Everything else you claim is based off of your own hopes and needs without any actual knowledge of what happens. If you have already died once and can tell us about your afterlife by all means do so. You admit that no one...I am guessing that includes you too...will know until they die. Why lie now when even you do not know? If you have proof show us.
If not, sell your snake oil somewhere else.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> When you die you will be dead. That is the only sure thing.
> Everything else you claim is based off of your own hopes and needs without any actual knowledge of what happens. If you have already died once and can tell us about your afterlife by all means do so. You admit that no one...I am guessing that includes you too...will know until they die. Why lie now when even you do not know? If you have proof show us.
> If not, sell your snake oil somewhere else.



When I die I will be more alive than I've ever been.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2015)

welderguy said:


> When I die I will be more alive than I've ever been.


Umm Hmmm
If you are held accountable for all the outright fibs you tell in here you may want to have your pastor bless some spf 10,000 for you just in case.


----------



## welderguy (May 15, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Umm Hmmm
> If you are held accountable for all the outright fibs you tell in here you may want to have your pastor bless some spf 10,000 for you just in case.



My pastor can't help me with that but
there's good news though because Jesus has washed me whiter than snow.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> My pastor can't help me with that but
> there's good news though because Jesus has washed me whiter than snow.


What is one more fabricated tale when you have told so many already?


----------



## Israel (May 16, 2015)

The canon of choice must then always yield to the canon of what is chosen for it. The mutable is always subject to the immutable.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 16, 2015)

Death is so 2,000 years ago. If you know Jesus you know life and more abundantly!
 I ain't dying, just going to slip out of this old earthly flesh someday and never look back.


----------



## welderguy (May 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If you have already died once and can tell us about your afterlife by all means do so.



I haven't died yet, but I can show you this:

Heb.9:27-28

 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:



28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't have to come in here anymore, or speak my mind on things so you have an additional viewpoint to discuss, so I won't any more.



Eh, just use the iggy list.  It'll make things better for ya.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I haven't died yet, but I can show you this:
> 
> Heb.9:27-28
> 
> ...


Ok so you and I are back to sharing Looney Tunes verses again.
I get it..you can't wipe your bottom or blow your nose without some justification from  the Bible...I really do get that, but you SO over do it in here that you have taken what little meaning those verses meant to me and have totally turned my taste for them at all.
It is sickening.


----------



## welderguy (May 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Ok so you and I are back to sharing Looney Tunes verses again.
> I get it..you can't wipe your bottom or blow your nose without some justification from  the Bible...I really do get that, but you SO over do it in here that you have taken what little meaning those verses meant to me and have totally turned my taste for them at all.
> It is sickening.



Sorry to hear that.

Are you going to pick up your toys and leave too?

Or maybe we could just put each other on the "iggy" list.

Im sure that would solve all our problems.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> Are you going to pick up your toys and leave too?
> 
> ...


Me? Leave? No way.
As always though I will honor the same respect I get. 
Th th th th Thats All Folks!


----------



## welderguy (May 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Th th th th Thats All Folks!



^ how coincidental.That porky pig quote just reminded me of another verse.

You know the one about the pearls and the swine.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ^ how coincidental.That porky pig quote just reminded me of another verse.
> 
> You know the one about the pearls and the swine.


You might want to read up on what various Biblical scholars think that verse actually means.
Its a buffet pick the interpretation you like best but I think we know already which one you have chosen.
You wont like some of the interpretations so those can be ignored Im sure.
Heres a preview -


> The metaphor seems to be teaching against giving what is holy to those who do not appreciate it. Animals such as dogs and pigs cannot appreciate religion, and this verse implies that there is some class of humans who cannot either. What this class is is a difficult question, as one of the dominant ideas in Christian thought is universalism. This verse also seems to contradict what had just gone before. Jesus has just spent five verses attacking the judging and condemning of others, but in this verse states that some section of the populace can be judged and found equal to dogs and swine.
> Historically the most common view was that this verse refers to the Eucharist. Only those in a pure state can take communion. Modern scholars reject this approach as the ritual of the Eucharist developed long after the gospel was written, and nowhere else does Matthew make reference to it.[4] Some early Christians believed that some parts of Christianity, such as the secrets of the Eucharist, should be kept secret from all but a chosen few. This followed the hierarchical patterns of the various mystery cults that were popular at the time in the Roman Empire.
> One modern argument is that dogs and pigs represent Gentiles and heathens, and that this verse is rare relic demonstrating that Jesus' original message was intended only for the Jews. Harrington notes that such warnings are found in rabbinic works of the period.[5] In Jewish literature heathens were often compared to dogs, and the unclean pig was a Jewish symbol for the Roman Empire. In 2 Peter 2:22 dogs and swine quite clearly refers to heretics. According to Schweizer this verse was used by Jewish Christians to attack the Gentile churches, to argue that Gentile Christians would turn on the Jews by rejecting their laws and destroying Israel.[6]
> The dominant reading is that the two expressions are both referring to the same thing and the same group of people. To Nolland this verse is not an attack on any particular group, but rather a continuation of the theme of God and Mammon begun at Matthew 6:24 and that verse is an attack on wasteful spending. We should put all of our resources to God, as everything is like dogs and pigs compared to Him.[7] Nolland also proposes that the verse might be to balance the other verses, that non-judgmentalism can only go so far and that there are some who should be excluded.[8]
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (May 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You might want to read up on what various Biblical scholars think that verse actually means.-



As with any Bible verse, folks will often see what they want, and take the interpretation that fits their notions, and in this case, I am also guilty.......I always figured it meant that some folks just ain't gonna listen no matter how good the case is.  But, I am not a scholar.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 16, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> As with any Bible verse, folks will often see what they want, and take the interpretation that fits their notions, and in this case, I am also guilty.......I always figured it meant that some folks just ain't gonna listen no matter how good the case is.  But, I am not a scholar.





> As with any Bible verse, folks will often see what they want, and take the interpretation that fits their notions,


I think the scholars fit right in with the folks.
From what Ive seen the scholars interpretations are as varied as everybody elses.
Just in what I posted there are huge differences between them.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> ^ how coincidental.That porky pig quote just reminded me of another verse.
> 
> You know the one about the pearls and the swine.



I only know about the Rooster, I say the Rooster and the Hound Dog boy...

I doubt our interpretations agree.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Scientifically speaking it is a Theory. It is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


A group of facts? Remember that a fact in science is accepted as "truth". A fact that is accepted today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.

Repeatedly tested? 

Why are multiple experiments required? If observation(sensation) is a reliable way of testing, why the need for more than one experiment? Seeing that observation is unreliable, how many experiments are required and who gets to decide this? 

What is the definition of "gullible" again?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> A group of facts? Remember that a fact in science is accepted as "truth". A fact that is accepted today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.
> 
> Repeatedly tested?
> 
> ...


If you cannot grasp the concept of the game there is no sense trying to explain the rules.
Gullible goes hand in hand with credulity , you are quite familiar with both.


----------



## welderguy (May 16, 2015)

gull-ible

    adjective
     :easily duped or cheated
     especially: quick to believe something that is not true.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2015)

welderguy said:


> gull-ible
> 
> adjective
> :easily duped or cheated
> especially: quick to believe something that is not true.


Perfect sig line for you. Congrats


----------



## gemcgrew (May 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> If you cannot grasp the concept of the game there is no sense trying to explain the rules.


Especially when the rules are circular.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Especially when the rules are circular.





gemcgrew said:


> Especially when the rules are circular.


Yes precisely. For example: There is a book written by men. Various men and anonymous men. In this book There is a god that just cannot get rid of earthly sin. Even though this all powerful and all knowing god (according to the book ) is supposed to love his creation he keeps on murdering his creation and starting over until he thinks he has it right. But again sin still runs rampant throughout his creation. In a brilliant move this god decides the only way he can prove himself (can you imagine, a god so powerful being constantly ignored over and over and over by his creation that he has to keep coming up with new plans in order to get noticed) to these lowly human creatures is to make a version of himself so he can let his creation MURDER himself in some sort of twisted sacrifice that is supposed to wipe all the sin away forever. According to the story the sacrificial  alter ego of this god doesn't really die at all (it is just a bait and switch) so he dupes his followers into thinking they killed his son but in reality he is his son and gets to live forever anyway back where he came from. But get this followers of this maniac keep trying convert others into following this god so that their sins can be saved which already happened when this god had himself killed by those same people.
Recap:
God morphs himself into sacrificial son so he can have himself killed to wash away sins of all humans but his believers insist sin still exists because they are instructed to by the son who is actually the father who said so in his book which he didn't write.

Yes sir, gullible..credulous and certainly circular. When your usual two handfuls of hypocrisy are added to those ingredients the religious stew becomes Nut soup.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes precisely. For example: There is a book written by men. Various men and anonymous men. In this book There is a god that just cannot get rid of earthly sin. Even though this all powerful and all knowing god (according to the book ) is supposed to love his creation he keeps on murdering his creation and starting over until he thinks he has it right. But again sin still runs rampant throughout his creation. In a brilliant move this god decides the only way he can prove himself (can you imagine, a god so powerful being constantly ignored over and over and over by his creation that he has to keep coming up with new plans in order to get noticed) to these lowly human creatures is to make a version of himself so he can let his creation MURDER himself in some sort of twisted sacrifice that is supposed to wipe all the sin away forever. According to the story the sacrificial  alter ego of this god doesn't really die at all (it is just a bait and switch) so he dupes his followers into thinking they killed his son but in reality he is his son and gets to live forever anyway back where he came from. But get this followers of this maniac keep trying convert others into following this god so that their sins can be saved which already happened when this god had himself killed by those same people.
> Recap:
> God morphs himself into sacrificial son so he can have himself killed to wash away sins of all humans but his believers insist sin still exists because they are instructed to by the son who is actually the father who said so in his book which he didn't write.


None of that applies to my worldview, so I take that you have been moved to arguing with yourself. Were you moved from gullible to schizophrenia?


bullethead said:


> Yes sir, gullible..credulous and certainly circular. When your usual two handfuls of hypocrisy are added to those ingredients the religious stew becomes Nut soup.


Is this an admission or defense?

I am about to leave for work, but I look forward to a continued conversation between us. Is that even possible with you?


----------



## welderguy (May 17, 2015)

It's only possible if you follow HIS set of rules.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> None of that applies to my worldview, so I take that you have been moved to arguing with yourself. Were you moved from gullible to schizophrenia?
> 
> Is this an admission or defense?
> 
> I am about to leave for work, but I look forward to a continued conversation between us. Is that even possible with you?


Our worldviews are too far apart to have any decent conversations.

Regarding the admission/defense question,  it was neither. It is an observation based off of your posts. You know that but you just quoted a part of what I posted hoping no one would notice.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

welderguy said:


> It's only possible if you follow HIS set of rules.



The rules are different here in the AAA.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Yes precisely. For example: There is a book written by men. Various men and anonymous men. In this book There is a god that just cannot get rid of earthly sin. Even though this all powerful and all knowing god (according to the book ) is supposed to love his creation he keeps on murdering his creation and starting over until he thinks he has it right. But again sin still runs rampant throughout his creation. In a brilliant move this god decides the only way he can prove himself (can you imagine, a god so powerful being constantly ignored over and over and over by his creation that he has to keep coming up with new plans in order to get noticed) to these lowly human creatures is to make a version of himself so he can let his creation MURDER himself in some sort of twisted sacrifice that is supposed to wipe all the sin away forever. According to the story the sacrificial  alter ego of this god doesn't really die at all (it is just a bait and switch) so he dupes his followers into thinking they killed his son but in reality he is his son and gets to live forever anyway back where he came from. But get this followers of this maniac keep trying convert others into following this god so that their sins can be saved which already happened when this god had himself killed by those same people.
> Recap:
> God morphs himself into sacrificial son so he can have himself killed to wash away sins of all humans but his believers insist sin still exists because they are instructed to by the son who is actually the father who said so in his book which he didn't write.
> 
> Yes sir, gullible..credulous and certainly circular. When your usual two handfuls of hypocrisy are added to those ingredients the religious stew becomes Nut soup.


I think of you often, to tell you I pray for you could seem an easy reach on my part to present some piety...an attempt to gain advantage by parading a concern for you. I think you are aware enough to know how the psychics of that works...or the spiritual physics, if you can even concede that. But, I am forbidden to take advantage of you...or anyone, without inviting a like response in nature.
Your boldness invites man to man, perhaps a battle in some sense for you, but just frankness on my part of things I have seen, heard, and, because of silence on my part, unbeknownst to you as quite relate-able.

Treading lightly seems at times a concession from the greater to the lesser, but here, I assure you it has not been so. More often, when "we" men contend with one another (and please, here, do not insult yourself by imagining, even if you consider me a fool, that 64 trips around the sun on this orb has left me without any experience) openly it is not unusual if there be any sense of a holding back by the (seeming) opposition, men easily cry "don't hold back, take your best shot". God forbid we ever appear in open battle (where men observe us) as one desiring the other to be hobbled on our account. Openly, we'd rather die than be shamed. We love to stand, or think we do, and can. You can tell me I speak only for myself, but remember, there are onlookers here, and you will have to point out to me those that can easily bear shame...while all men have no choice about death. Till they meet it...and then all the bargaining chips appear.
I speak of one I've met, whose death of seeming shame I have found myself unable to voluntarily bear. You can say he is beyond any man's encountering except by imagination, and even if that being granted, what do you have of me...a real man, right here, right now...except your imaginings of "how I am"...and likewise, then, what do I have "of you"? I concede my apprehension of you is probably faulty, do you the same of me...or do you "imagine" you have me quite nailed down...pat? 

You speak, at least to my imaginings, pretty boldly to the hypocrisy of others and that not without including a judgment of what men would call sanity. Far be it from any other man to seek to deny you that license, if not freedom. Some of us might even concede you are speaking the purest truth you have, having already been through the primers of the faith that teach "you will appear crazy to the world"...and a quite fundamental lesson to the disciple in being aware that hypocrisy is always most easily identified in "others". That lesson is never far from the disciple, not only in awareness, but also the bewareness of it. Like an immunization of sorts, it always requires booster shots, lest the disciple think he has finally arrived where he alone is above reproach, and can speak with impunity. None of us is above being stripped bare and shamed by our own shortcomings if we think we are "better" than another.

I daresay no disciple that has walked for more than a few minutes with Jesus is unaware of that pitfall.

So, as I said, I think of you, often. I think of things said in response, of things shared openly of a quite personal nature. In many ways you have been quite forthcoming. You say you extend respect in the measure it is extended to you, or at least by your perception. You have said, in so many words, that you have never been in jail, never been "bad" enough, perhaps, (in your own sight) for this salvation to work on you (again, in so many words). That was a very refreshing admission for me to see, how that you conceded, apart from thinking yourself as "low" as some may have confessed (again, to your perception) themselves to be...this might not apply to you. From my perception I heard "I guess I am just not bad enough to need saving...as these others seem to think of themselves." In that, at the very least, was an openness to admitting..."maybe I don't see, because I am not in the position to see."

Yes, many of us know we are the offscourings, the weak, the broken, the handicapped, the misshapen, in a world parading its strength. This is not news to us. Even the most brilliant (if there be such) amongst "us" knows his understanding is paltry, and if required to stand upon that in the face of the "everything"...only shame ensues. So, in that matter we are glad to bear the shame of the world of us, that we need not be ashamed before the everything. When, if by pretense we embrace the trying to be a "something"...in the very presence of the everything, we have learned there are unpleasant lessons, also which we have learned, when learned, may be unnecessary...and avoided. Simply don't grasp at being a something before others. 

It is, as most things, more easily said, than done. But school's in, and the teacher doesn't get weary.

We like to, as we have found, most men "like to" speak with impunity, that is, to imagine we come from a place so right that our words cannot be impugned. But in the place the disicple is called to, he discovers, no one speaks to one another with impunity. He learns the only one who has words un-impugn-able, unimpeachable, has accepted him, and all others dwelling there as friend; and does not even exercise any thought of being better than his friends. He has no position to "try" to maintain above any, he just simply is who he is, and who he is among those who by his recognition of himself, have also come to simply being "who they are".

So, in this I speak to you, in hope as friend. I will tread where you have gone, and speak to you of it. It is of no matter that as a new convert I watched my own father's frame wither of cancer and beheld my own mother's noble grief in caring for him. A grief I sought to ameliorate by prayer, by testimony, by the "laying on of hands" for my father's recovery...yes, I was, in some ways, perhaps...bold. 

And, though I have yet not learned all the intricacies of boldness and presumption, at 17 I couldn't have begun to understand there might even be a difference. (My first birth as rebel, even with repentance, didn't convert a mind that still only saw everything in terms of "what it wanted of itself".)
And so, when after my father succumbed, I was told by those who were "discipling" me that my failure in faith was plainly manifest by my father's death, for years that was a handy reference for one yet a "rebel of mind" to indulge a shunning of things "christian"...thinking I was shunning the Lord and keeping him at bay. It also seemed useful to the indulging of fornication, this imagination that "all of then" could be so easily dismissed in what I perceived as the, and often related, cruelty of a system so quick to say to (play violins softly) ME, "your father died through your lack of faith".
Yep, it was handy...to me. All sorts of stuff was then engaged..."with impunity".
I could go on...but won't. The many years, many lessons.
The "system" had to be cleared, cleaned...so that I could see...it was not to a "system" I had been called.

But, as I said, none of this really, is of any matter in light of what I am about to ask you, if except you can possibly receive it as a broken olive branch before I go into a tender place of your own.

You don't know, really...do you, that your prayers for your mother in law went unheeded...for, despite what you saw and have related, her sufferings could have been even more extensive. But, I understand that "to you" they appear as deep, perhaps even deeper than could ever be for anyone. They could easily appear as the perfection of suffering...willed in reproof of your desire for her. 

I know a little about standing in a place where frustration is not only apparent...but seemingly made perfect in every measure imaginable. Beyond the place of knowing it...but feeling as though one is having their face rubbed in it.
The only other thing I would ask, as I don't recall you expressing anything of a surety in this regard, how do you know to whom she was speaking when she said "I hate you!"

When we can come to a place where admitting all our assumptions, both you, and I, must give way to something else, and the right or wrong of either of us, both of us, neither of us, is of any matter, I think we'll both see the place where we are friends.
I hold this hope, cause I don't think we are as different as we may hear from "something" sometimes...


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> I think of you often, to tell you I pray for you could seem an easy reach on my part to present some piety...an attempt to gain advantage by parading a concern for you. I think you are aware enough to know how the psychics of that works...or the spiritual physics, if you can even concede that. But, I am forbidden to take advantage of you...or anyone, without inviting a like response in nature.
> Your boldness invites man to man, perhaps a battle in some sense for you, but just frankness on my part of things I have seen, heard, and, because of silence on my part, unbeknownst to you as quite relate-able.
> 
> Treading lightly seems at times a concession from the greater to the lesser, but here, I assure you it has not been so. More often, when "we" men contend with one another (and please, here, do not insult yourself by imagining, even if you consider me a fool, that 64 trips around the sun on this orb has left me without any experience) openly it is not unusual if there be any sense of a holding back by the (seeming) opposition, men easily cry "don't hold back, take your best shot". God forbid we ever appear in open battle (where men observe us) as one desiring the other to be hobbled on our account. Openly, we'd rather die than be shamed. We love to stand, or think we do, and can. You can tell me I speak only for myself, but remember, there are onlookers here, and you will have to point out to me those that can easily bear shame...while all men have no choice about death. Till they meet it...and then all the bargaining chips appear.
> ...


Israel. All I can say regarding my MIL's ordeal is that to understand what I know you would have had to be there.
My experience with her death is just one part of my entire disbelief of all man made religions. 

And apologies if you asked me something in the rest of your post. It was just too jumpy to follow.
In other words, if you want to ask me something ask me. If you want to tell me a specific point tell me. I lose interest very quickly with all the different directions it takes.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Israel. All I can say regarding my MIL's ordeal is that to understand what I know you would have had to be there.
> My experience with her death is just one part of my entire disbelief of all _man made religions. _
> 
> And apologies if you asked me something in the rest of your post. It was just too jumpy to follow.
> In other words, if you want to ask me something ask me. If you want to tell me a specific point tell me. I lose interest very quickly with all the different directions it takes.


I don't know, of myself, at what point the "ianity" got attached to christian, nor even precisely where "ian" got attached to Christ.
But I do know that before both, there is a testimony to be found of those whose occupation was far less than to whatever branches and blooms are described as such, and a simple devotion to the root called Jesus Christ. I have seen "in Him" what their testimony has told me I would find in him, not the building by men of what has come up "around him"...but in the being built together, by him, in, and with, others that are devoted to digging past the ruins and cobblestones to the uncovering of the naked truth.
I must hear him as any must who hear him, speaking directly to me. His voice is different than any other. And it is precisely because of this, that even if your voice may seem in my ear different than what I have been told "to expect" from those who know him, I cannot dismiss you out of hand.
I know anger at the religious system. I know of what tries to conceal a smug superiority of being "in the know" with many fine words about love and forgiveness. I know this, because I have exercised it, myself. I also know what it means to be less than I have seen can be, and even purport a knowing of the "can be" that is, in practice, denied by my actions, making me a hypocrite. Yes, you can easily say "you haven't learned much at all, by the look of it".

And I couldn't disagree without being a liar.

And perhaps you are here to help me become a truer man.
I am not afraid to say "I don't know".
But that fear has only been stolen by the one who has told me, the only one who has ever told me with the authority to make it so "fear not".
We all "listen" to a man. Somehow I have been made to understand the last man I should listen to in regards to anything...is myself.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> I don't know, of myself, at what point the "ianity" got attached to christian, nor even precisely where "ian" got attached to Christ.
> But I do know that before both, there is a testimony to be found of those whose occupation was far less than to whatever branches and blooms are described as such, and a simple devotion to the root called Jesus Christ. I have seen "in Him" what their testimony has told me I would find in him, not the building by men of what has come up "around him"...but in the being built together, by him, in, and with, others that are devoted to digging past the ruins and cobblestones to the uncovering of the naked truth.
> I must hear him as any must who hear him, speaking directly to me. His voice is different than any other. And it is precisely because of this
> , that even if your voice may seem in my ear different than what I have been told "to expect" from those who know him, I cannot dismiss you out of hand.
> ...



Your personal relationship with something you think you have is a good thing for you. 
Unfortunately the thing that you think is so universally right is not universal at all. A supposed god man of that magnitude lasted about 3 years. He was all man and no god.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> We like to, as we have found, most men "like to" speak with impunity, that is, to imagine we come from a place so right that our words cannot be impugned. But in the place the disicple is called to, he discovers, no one speaks to one another with impunity. He learns the only one who has words un-impugn-able, unimpeachable, has accepted him, and all others dwelling there as friend; and does not even exercise any thought of being better than his friends. He has no position to "try" to maintain above any, he just simply is who he is, and who he is among those who by his recognition of himself, have also come to simply being "who they are".



The locked down threads upstairs say different.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The locked down threads upstairs say different.


The trend shows that all the individual feelings upstairs that are not allowed to be discussed get brought up down here so the individuals can get their theories off of their chest. At least they have an audience that entertains their thoughts here in the AAA.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The trend shows that all the individual feelings upstairs that are not allowed to be discussed get brought up down here so the individuals can get their theories off of their chest. At least they have an audience that entertains their thoughts here in the AAA.



I wonder why they don't come down here and hash out Freewill and Predestination?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I wonder why they don't come down here and hash out Freewill and Predestination?


Just a guess but most are content to not question whatever doesn't make sense beyond the authorities above.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> The locked down threads upstairs say different.



I want to understand you.
Do you mean that the "locker downer" has, by his action, stated "I am the last word on this"?
Or, do you mean that they step in when there's too much of that impunifyin' goin' on?
Or...both?


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Just a guess but most are content to not question whatever doesn't make sense beyond the authorities above.


Is that what you really believe?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> Is that what you really believe?


My response clearly stated it was a guess.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Our worldviews are too far apart to have any decent conversations.


Perhaps.


bullethead said:


> Regarding the admission/defense question,  it was neither. It is an observation based off of your posts. You know that but you just quoted a part of what I posted hoping no one would notice.


Sensation failed to reveal truth to you yet again.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Sensation failed to reveal truth to you yet again.


Lucky for me your opinion is just that.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Lucky for me your opinion is just that.


Do you have any other examples to show just how unreliable observation is in acquiring knowledge?


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you have any other examples to show just how unreliable observation is in acquiring knowledge?



People believe that they hear, actually hear, God.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> People believe that they hear, actually hear, God.


And how would one test such a claim?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you have any other examples to show just how unreliable observation is in acquiring knowledge?


Observation is very reliable.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> And how would one test such a claim?



If all is working properly, sound vibrations move the eardrum, stapes, incus and malleus bones and are transmitted as electrical impulses to the brain.  No sound vibrations, no moving bones, no hearing.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> I want to understand you.
> Do you mean that the "locker downer" has, by his action, stated "I am the last word on this"?
> Or, do you mean that they step in when there's too much of that impunifyin' goin' on?
> Or...both?




I really didn't think of it this way but that's pretty interesting and revealing isn't it?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Observation is very reliable.


Again, why the need for repeated testing? If observation is reliable, only one test is needed.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> My response clearly stated it was a guess.



That's disingenuous, and I also believe you know it.
You are not guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, you are suggesting motives, of which you have every right, but then saying "it's just a guess" as though of all the myriad possibilities as to the why's of behavior you believe is observed, you just "happen" to mention that...which again is your right...but it's just as right to wonder just how you perceive what goes on.
The pressing of an issue may lead to a grief for some, especially those who have some authority to as much as they are able, keep the peace. It may true that mortal combat over doctrinal issues gets at least heated at times, if not over heated for some to bear. The submission to their will as perceiving that as something which does more harm than good, is just that, a submission in faith that according to both their understanding, and ones own, they will as they see, the best in the situation.
You may like to see this as timorous on the part of some, and/or a form of tyranny on the part of others. For my part, I see no such thing but very rarely. And it would not be my best guess.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If all is working properly, sound vibrations move the eardrum, stapes, incus and malleus bones and are transmitted as electrical impulses to the brain.  No sound vibrations, no moving bones, no hearing.


Not even in a purely mental world? Dream world?


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I really didn't think of it this way but that's pretty interesting and revealing isn't it?


Well, that's why I asked.
You see, I have been hauled from meetings by the throat, escorted out by congregants, escorted off grounds by police, jailed, endured perjuries for the sake of gaining  convictions, physically deposited in a dumpster and had myriad other charges leveled and encounters with both religious authorities and civil law keepers.
As to the goings on "upstairs" (as you say) which I find quite orderly, I can only then suppose by your above comment of its novelty to you is that the participants, and not those charged with keeping the order are the "culprits"...(if indeed there be any)...needing a strict(?) monitoring.
A free for all is quite different than a melee, but to the casual observer they may appear just brawling. And even when as kids we called a "free for all", sometimes it was good for someone to step in before we got carried away and someone got hurt. Everyone I have met "upstairs"  appears to me committed to the presumption that the life we share in the Lord is indeed free for all, and sometimes, even in that...time outs need be called, rightly...or maybe even for some, seemingly prematurely.
But that's the way it is.
And that's why, having experienced the rigors of religion, and wondering whether you too had experienced the same, it was that to which you were referring.


----------



## ambush80 (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Not even in a purely mental world? Dream world?



Thoughts and dreams.  Not sound.  Unless you want to change the definition, which you seem to do without reservation.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Again, why the need for repeated testing? If observation is reliable, only one test is needed.


To eliminate variables that may come into play after the first test.
Because things might change.
Repeated testing allows for the advancements in procedures and techniques that are able to confirm or deny previous tests. 
If you do not rely on one prostate exam or one physical then you know what I am talking about.
If you do rely on one doctor visit then you should reconsider.


----------



## Israel (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Not even in a purely mental world? Dream world?



yes. where does every sense have residence...except the mind?

BTW...in addition to a Hitler dream over which I still ruminate in its profound impression, I was delighted to have experienced a dream a few years ago in which a man had a riddle, which in the dream, I could not answer, but he did.
Yes...delightful, and strange...to one who believes himself awake.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> That's disingenuous, and I also believe you know it.
> You are not guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar, you are suggesting motives, of which you have every right, but then saying "it's just a guess" as though of all the myriad possibilities as to the why's of behavior you believe is observed, you just "happen" to mention that...which again is your right...but it's just as right to wonder just how you perceive what goes on.
> The pressing of an issue may lead to a grief for some, especially those who have some authority to as much as they are able, keep the peace. It may true that mortal combat over doctrinal issues gets at least heated at times, if not over heated for some to bear. The submission to their will as perceiving that as something which does more harm than good, is just that, a submission in faith that according to both their understanding, and ones own, they will as they see, the best in the situation.
> You may like to see this as timorous on the part of some, and tyranny on the part of others. For my part, I see no such thing but very rarely. And it would not be my best guess.


It was a guess because I did not talk with every individual that participates in the above forums frequently but rarely if at all in here.
My guess is one of many possibilities. I took a stab at one.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> To eliminate variables that may come into play after the first test.
> Because things might change.
> Repeated testing allows for the advancements in procedures and techniques that are able to confirm or deny previous tests.


Bullet, all great points. I think that we both agree that "controlled experiments" would be vital. An infinite number of things remain though, things that may effect each and every experiment. What variables would have to be identified and controlled? How would that be accomplished by observation? If "Observation is very reliable" as you claim, why is more than one test necessary? 

Multiple testing is required... simply because observation is unreliable.


bullethead said:


> If you do not rely on one prostate exam or one physical then you know what I am talking about.
> If you do rely on one doctor visit then you should reconsider.


But aren't you just making my point for me?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

Israel said:


> yes. where does every sense have residence...except the mind?
> 
> BTW...in addition to a Hitler dream over which I still ruminate in its profound impression, I was delighted to have experienced a dream a few years ago in which a man had a riddle, which in the dream, I could not answer, but he did.
> Yes...delightful, and strange...to one who believes himself awake.


You mean to tell me that you had a real dream, and in that real dream, you really heard and talked?

I have had those as well!


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, all great points. I think that we both agree that "controlled experiments" would be vital. An infinite number of things remain though, things that may effect each and every experiment. What variables would have to be identified and controlled? How would that be accomplished by observation? If "Observation is very reliable" as you claim, why is more than one test necessary?
> 
> Multiple testing is required... simply because observation is unreliable.
> 
> But aren't you just making my point for me?



Being that my scientific experiments inside elaborate laboratories are limited to none I am almost positive that with a little research you can seek the answers you are looking for from a more reliable source than me.
For certain situations like when I hunt I base my stand locations off of the animals patterns that I observe,  observation is all I need.
Same goes for certain cleaners on certain fabrics. The directions always tell the user to test in a small area first. Observing a change in color, or not, is all that is needed to gain all of the necessary information for the experiment needed for the user. I am sure the maker of the product did more testing than observation.
It all depends on the situation and depth of information needed. There are viable examples for each method.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Being that my scientific experiments inside elaborate laboratories are limited to none I am almost positive that with a little research you can seek the answers you are looking for from a more reliable source than me.
> For certain situations like when I hunt I base my stand locations off of the animals patterns that I observe,  observation is all I need.
> Same goes for certain cleaners on certain fabrics. The directions always tell the user to test in a small area first. Observing a change in color, or not, is all that is needed to gain all of the necessary information for the experiment needed for the user. I am sure the maker of the product did more testing than observation.
> It all depends on the situation and depth of information needed. There are viable examples for each method.


Sure, and I am not arguing that science does not produce results. As long as the problem of affirming the consequent remains, the results are not truths. 

I am sure that you are familiar with Bertrand Russell's explanation, "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Sure, and I am not arguing that science does not produce results. As long as the problem of affirming the consequent remains, the results are not truths.
> 
> I am sure that you are familiar with Bertrand Russell's explanation, "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."


I will ask you first to show me how the bread is a stone. And we would take it from there.
I may be wrong but it seems your understanding of science and it's methods are not up to snuff.
The scientific laws have been proven to be a touch more accurate. While the claims are fundamentally similar the methods used to separate them both are where they differ.
Anything can be claimed like your stone/bread example but the methods used to back up that claim is where they differ.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Sure, and I am not arguing that science does not produce results. As long as the problem of affirming the consequent remains, the results are not truths.
> 
> I am sure that you are familiar with Bertrand Russell's explanation, "All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."


I will ask you first to show me how the bread is a stone. And we would take it from there.
I may be wrong but it seems your understanding of science and it's methods are not up to snuff.
The scientific laws have been proven to be a touch more accurate. Scientific laws are more accurate where your example is extremely general. While the claims are fundamentally similar the methods used to separate them both are where they differ.
Anything can be claimed like your stone/bread example but the methods used to back up that claim is where they differ.
Im not so sure all of science uses Russell's arguments as gospel. I'm going to look into that.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

http://thereignofchrist.com/bertrand-russell-on-the-unsolved-problem-of-induction/
I was taking your posts as original work. I see it is word for word from here.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I will ask you first to show me how the bread is a stone. And we would take it from there.


He is not saying that bread is a stone, but "If" rather. That can also apply to our earlier comments regarding "identifying variables", "repeated testing", "controlled experiments", "identifying changes" etc.
It is "affirming the consequent".
a) If X, then Y
b) Y
c.)Therefore X


bullethead said:


> I may be wrong but it seems your understanding of science and it's methods are not up to snuff.


If observation(sensation) is very reliable, you should know if you are wrong or right.


bullethead said:


> The scientific laws have been proven to be a touch more accurate. While the claims are fundamentally similar the methods used to separate them both are where they differ.


But being "a touch more accurate" may yield nothing of value.


bullethead said:


> Anything can be claimed like your stone/bread example but the methods used to back up that claim is where they differ.


The example is the method used. That is one of the reasons that I believe science claims too much for itself.

The rain has stopped here and I have some yard work to do. I am enjoying the conversation and will check back later.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://thereignofchrist.com/bertrand-russell-on-the-unsolved-problem-of-induction/
> I was taking your posts as original work. I see it is word for word from here.


Of course it is word for word. It is Russell's explanation. I said as much.

"Observation is very reliable."?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Im not so sure all of science uses Russell's arguments as gospel. I'm going to look into that.


As I said earlier there are situations where observation is accurate and works and there are times when other methods need to be used.
Use what works.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> As I said earlier there are situations where observation is accurate and works and there are times when other methods need to be used.
> Use what works.


I would be interested in these other methods, only if they are absent sensation. If "observation is very reliable", as you claim, why are these other methods needed? If these other methods rely upon observation, is this not circular?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Im not so sure all of science uses Russell's arguments as gospel. I'm going to look into that.


I hope that you will. There are plenty of other works available by those who would not be considered as friends of Christianity. If you are brought to a place of understanding the irrationality of, and the faith required to embrace empiricism as a reliable means of obtaining truth, you may face your own superstitions.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I would be interested in these other methods, only if they are absent sensation. If "observation is very reliable", as you claim, why are these other methods needed? If these other methods rely upon observation, is this not circular?


I have told you twice now and have given examples where observation is used.
Depending upon the situation or amount of information needed, observation is very reliable in certain situations.
In medical situations where a rash may appear observation is the way to go. If your children have ever had to make a peroxide volcano that bubbles out "lava" they get to observe the chemical reaction. Same can be said for an animal with rabies. There is no test until the animal is dead the protocol is observation.
It is not circular. Sometimes observation alone is perfect. Sometimes other methods besides observation are the way to go. Sometimes a combination of both is needed.
If you need bigger answers or more examples from me I am going to have to look them up and you will either agree and continue asking like they do not count or disagree and not take my answers as valid anyway. In this situation the best thing for you to do is eliminate the middle man and find the answers you seek yourself. The science sites are full of them.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I would be interested in these other methods, only if they are absent sensation. If "observation is very reliable", as you claim, why are these other methods needed? If these other methods rely upon observation, is this not circular?


http://m.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I have told you twice now and have given examples where observation is used.


Yes and I find your examples both logically and rationally lacking.


bullethead said:


> Depending upon the situation or amount of information needed, observation is very reliable in certain situations.


We have moved from "observation is very reliable" to "observation is very reliable in certain situations". So, we now agree that observation is unreliable in certain situations? Of course it is and that is why scientists attempt to overcome this problem by having "controlled experiments", "repeated testing" etc. All of which utilize the same method of "affirming the consequent" by "observation"... which is unreliable.


bullethead said:


> In medical situations where a rash may appear observation is the way to go.


So, if it looks like a rash and/or feels like a rash, it is a rash? 

Bullet, I am only addressing part of your quotes because of time. I have taken a 3 week leave of absence from work in order to help my MIL with a difficult situation. I am not sure if the internet will be available where I am staying. If it is, I will check back in.

Thanks for the conversation.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes and I find your examples both logically and rationally lacking.


So observing deer tracks, hair, and Live animals using a trail and based on those observations I decide to hunt there is logically and rationally lacking?
Must I take plaster casts of the tracks, send out hair samples to a lab and capture a live animal for further tests before I can decide to hunt there?


gemcgrew said:


> We have moved from "observation is very reliable" to "observation is very reliable in certain situations". So, we now agree that observation is unreliable in certain situations? Of course it is and that is why scientists attempt to overcome this problem by having "controlled experiments", "repeated testing" etc. All of which utilize the same method of "affirming the consequent" by "observation"... which is unreliable.


Observation is the first step in scientific method. All those other tests either confirm or deny what has been observed but in every case something is first observed.



gemcgrew said:


> So, if it looks like a rash and/or feels like a rash, it is a rash?


If a rash is suspected and an observable rash appears it is certainly an observable symptom.



gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, I am only addressing part of your quotes because of time. I have taken a 3 week leave of absence from work in order to help my MIL with a difficult situation. I am not sure if the internet will be available where I am staying. If it is, I will check back in.
> 
> Thanks for the conversation.


I sincerely hope she is able to get the situation straightened out.

How would you know if there is or is not internet there?


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes and I find your examples both logically and rationally lacking.
> 
> We have moved from "observation is very reliable" to "observation is very reliable in certain situations". So, we now agree that observation is unreliable in certain situations? Of course it is and that is why scientists attempt to overcome this problem by having "controlled experiments", "repeated testing" etc. All of which utilize the same method of "affirming the consequent" by "observation"... which is unreliable.
> 
> ...



And I must admit that I am learning as I go here. Not being a scientist I am learning as I research. Observation is certainly a part of the scientific method. The rest of the method is meant to confirm or deny.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2015)

Gem,



There's no way to know everything, that's granted.  You can know enough about something though the scientific method to make working predictions about reality.  Rocks fall down not up.  I child discovers this quickly.  In fact they are ingrained with a fear of heights for that very reason.  

It seems to me that you're implying there's a different way of "knowing" reality that you are holding close to your chest.  Why don't you go ahead and say what you're thinking.

I hope that the situation with your mother in law improves.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

Bullet, due to heavy rain and flooding, I have postponed my trip to Shreveport until tomorrow morning. You are stuck with me for awhile longer. 




bullethead said:


> So observing deer tracks, hair, and Live animals using a trail and based on those observations I decide to hunt there is logically and rationally lacking?


Not for the sake of hunting. By observation, how would you determine that the tracks and hair were not placed there by me? My brothers and I use to do this very thing. We would also make rubs and scrapes in order to trick our friends into thinking they had found a great place to hunt. 
If you are actually seeing deer using the trails, your odds of killing one may increase. How would you know, by observation, if these deer are not someone's pets returning to their pens? Or wild deer that are just misplaced by a predator? Or just passing through, never to return? I am just introducing other possibilities that may impact your experience.



bullethead said:


> Must I take plaster casts of the tracks, send out hair samples to a lab and capture a live animal for further tests before I can decide to hunt there?


The casts and hair samples would not prove that a deer was ever there. If you capture a live one, test it and release it, there is no guarantee that it will ever be there again.



bullethead said:


> Observation is the first step in scientific method. All those other tests either confirm or deny what has been observed but in every case something is first observed.


Would you agree that what is first observed may be a thought or concept? Would you consider either of these as physical? 


bullethead said:


> If a rash is suspected and an observable rash appears it is certainly an observable symptom.


Or just the result of introducing sweat... to a brand new pair of red boxers. In this personal case, panic set in.


bullethead said:


> I sincerely hope she is able to get the situation straightened out.


Thanks


bullethead said:


> How would you know if there is or is not internet there?


I won't, until I get there. Even then, how would I know that I am not the victim of an elaborate hoax? Or simply dreaming?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Gem,
> There's no way to know everything, that's granted.


I would disagree.


ambush80 said:


> You can know enough about something though the scientific method to make working predictions about reality.  Rocks fall down not up.  I child discovers this quickly.  In fact they are ingrained with a fear of heights for that very reason.


I had a fear of heights, but I also had friends who were fearless of heights. Who gets to make the claim concerning reality? Me, or my friends? 


ambush80 said:


> It seems to me that you're implying there's a different way of "knowing" reality that you are holding close to your chest.  Why don't you go ahead and say what you're thinking.


I am saying what I'm thinking.


ambush80 said:


> I hope that the situation with your mother in law improves.


Thanks


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

bullethead said:


> And I must admit that I am learning as I go here. Not being a scientist I am learning as I research.


If you are studying, you are a scientist, at least by some definitions. You may be a better scientist than those that are making a living from it.


bullethead said:


> Observation is certainly a part of the scientific method. The rest of the method is meant to confirm or deny.


I agree.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I would disagree.
> 
> I had a fear of heights, but I also had friends who were fearless of heights. Who gets to make the claim concerning reality? Me, or my friends?
> 
> ...



How is it possible to know everything?

My claim about heights is that things fall down.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, due to heavy rain and flooding, I have postponed my trip to Shreveport until tomorrow morning. You are stuck with me for awhile longer.


Not the worst thing to happen to me.





gemcgrew said:


> Not for the sake of hunting. By observation, how would you determine that the tracks and hair were not placed there by me? My brothers and I use to do this very thing. We would also make rubs and scrapes in order to trick our friends into thinking they had found a great place to hunt.
> If you are actually seeing deer using the trails, your odds of killing one may increase. How would you know, by observation, if these deer are not someone's pets returning to their pens? Or wild deer that are just misplaced by a predator? Or just passing through, never to return? I am just introducing other possibilities that may impact your experience.


It would not have to be for hunting, I could be doing a deer study. Repeated observation would be able to give me a better understanding of who/what/where these deer are. Observing trail cam pics that cover the hours that I am not there would show me who/what/where is going on.




gemcgrew said:


> The casts and hair samples would not prove that a deer was ever there. If you capture a live one, test it and release it, there is no guarantee that it will ever be there again.


 Repeated observation would let me know that more likely than not it is a very good place to sit or it's  not a very good place to sit.




gemcgrew said:


> Would you agree that what is first observed may be a thought or concept? Would you consider either of these as physical?


I am not sure a thought or concept could be observed except in one's own mind. It could be considered physical to the individual as they would envision it.
Although there are machines that measure brain waves that show a thought is occurring. That process can be observed.



gemcgrew said:


> Or just the result of introducing sweat... to a brand new pair of red boxers. In this personal case, panic set in.


No doubt that is one scenario.
But in the case of spotted fever or shingles an observable rash allows a physician to confirm or rule out.



gemcgrew said:


> Thanks


You are welcome


gemcgrew said:


> , I won't  until I get there. Even then, how would I know that I am not the victim of an elaborate hoax? Or simply dreaming?


Well I am not a gambler but in this case I would bet that you will just connect to the internet if available and carry on with your posts.
If you take the time to scour the area in the hopes of finding the pranksters that are fooling you into thinking you have the internet OR if you snap out of a deep sleep and everything you thought you posted was never really posted at all then I will have to rely on your honesty and word that you will report it accurately here when you are fully awake and have internet access back at home. Unless "they" are onto you there also?????


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How is it possible to know everything?


I believe that in order to know anything as true, omniscience has to exist. I found your claim that "There's no way to know everything" to be self refuting. If there is no way to know everything, how can you claim "There's no way to know everything" to be true? I am thinking more from a logical prior or presuppositional position.



ambush80 said:


> My claim about heights is that things fall down.


I understood you there. I was responding more to your fact claim of "In fact they are ingrained with a fear of heights for that very reason."

Good stuff though.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I believe that in order to know anything as true, omniscience has to exist. I found your claim that "There's no way to know everything" to be self refuting. If there is no way to know everything, how can you claim "There's no way to know everything" to be true? I am thinking more from a logical prior or presuppositional position.



I think there is still room in the statement "there's no way to know everything" to include "there are ways to know somethings".  It's a philosophical issue, I believe.




gemcgrew said:


> I understood you there. I was responding more to your fact claim of "In fact they are ingrained with a fear of heights for that very reason."
> 
> Good stuff though.




I stand corrected.

http://www.livescience.com/38432-how-babies-learn-to-fear-heights.html

Of course this is science and what do they know after all?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

Bullet, your post #218 has valid arguments. If I continue to challenge the reliability of observation(sensation) as a means of acquiring truth, I will just be repeating myself. 

This is not just a Christian vs. Atheist discussion. Many Christians also view empiricism as valid. But the Bible gives many examples showing the unreliability of the senses.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, your post #218 has valid arguments. If I continue to challenge the reliability of observation(sensation) as a means of acquiring truth, I will just be repeating myself.
> 
> This is not just a Christian vs. Atheist discussion. Many Christians also view empiricism as valid. But the Bible gives many examples showing the unreliability of the senses.



And why is it an authority?


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> And why is it an authority?


For the Christian? It is the Word of God.


----------



## bullethead (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, your post #218 has valid arguments. If I continue to challenge the reliability of observation(sensation) as a means of acquiring truth, I will just be repeating myself.
> 
> This is not just a Christian vs. Atheist discussion. Many Christians also view empiricism as valid. But the Bible gives many examples showing the unreliability of the senses.



I took the discussion as just good conversation. Never thought it as Christian vs Atheist .
Yes I agree the senses can only be so reliable. There are instances where they are spot on and instances where they are fooled quite easily. But because science knows that they have back up tests to the back up tests in order to confirm or deny.
I agree the Bible shows instances where the senses are unreliable but that is neither the only source to show such things or unique in the way the senses are fooled.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 18, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think there is still room in the statement "there's no way to know everything" to include "there are ways to know somethings".  It's a philosophical issue, I believe.


Perhaps, I see it as in order to know something as absolutely true, all of the possibilities would have to be known. 


ambush80 said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/38432-how-babies-learn-to-fear-heights.html
> 
> Of course this is science and what do they know after all?


Well, they have results.


----------



## ambush80 (May 18, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Perhaps, I see it as in order to know something as absolutely true, all of the possibilities would have to be known.
> 
> Well, they have results.



What's the philosophical argument that supports that?


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2015)

I find something Gem is saying unaddressed, almost passed by...as though it is understood in agreement, but really...not.
And correct me Gem, as I have been interested in y'alls exchange.

When you all were speaking of "observation" it seems it was almost broken down into at least two divisions...with a simple "seeing" be assigned the first, and "testing", the second.

Like when you were speaking of the "rash"...well, observation would be assigned me seeing it, and from there, open to interpreting what would be its cause, based upon "mere" observation.

It's as if, to really "know" we leave off observation for what I believe Bullet then interprets as the final, or at least more perfect (now, ain't that a silly phrase?) measure...testing. (We take a few skin scrapings, or do a blood test, or try to quantify by whatever means a "more than can be simply seen with the eye" presence to determine "in truth" the nature of what is being experienced by one, seen by another (perhaps). And this is where I found Gem not pressing his point, (and I could perhaps wrongly assume, it is for the sake of grace) that regardless of whether it is "just" seen on the surface, seen through a microscope (Oh, lots of bugs...may be a staph infection)...or through a mass spectrometer (oh, look, the chemicals from Red Dye # 967 used in fabric)...all the testing is just another means of observation...always no different in quality and nature than what could be called "mere" observation.

So, here, although the conversation has progressed beyond, I have been stuck.


When I had a simpleton's misunderstanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle from a cursory glossing I was set straight by a brilliant guy who had a better grasp. But regardless, I have since learned that some of my misapprehensions of that particular matter, though ridiculously apparent to a simpleton, are actually being considered in some theories of physics.

I misunderstood it as this (in practice)....and I think it's plain why the "uncertainty" part of that principle was easily misinterpreted by a simpleton as myself:

I want to know the temperature of a pool of water. I stick in a thermometer...but...by the very "sticking in a thermometer" I have affected the temperature of the pool. Obviously, if the pool is 48 degrees, and the thermometer is 64... the best result I will ever get is not what I was aiming for...for I have warmed it...to some measure.
Clearly, the smaller the pool, the bigger the thermometer will result in really skewing my search "for the truth of the water's temp"...so, we try to minimize the impact of the testing device.

The only way to truly know, it would seem, would be to put a thermometer in that neither adds nor absorbs any heat...but for that the thermometer would have to be the precise temp of the pool...a pool whose temp, I don't know. And if I "magically" had a thermometer that always wouldn't affect its target, so it wouldn't add or detract...well, I wouldn't then need to stick it in the pool. I'd just read the device.(that's silly, of course)

But here's where it got weird, in the sense of cool weird, for me. So, I'm watching some TV show a while ago, and it's all about the theories of "being"...of multiverses, or of some kind of holographic realities...and some other theory that some embrace (at least one theoretical physicist...somewhere...and they go into the nature of the universe (being if you will)...and this guy (or guys) I forget, even has a theory about what we perceive, and they show the moon ...like over a guys shoulder, and then they show the guy turning to "look" at the moon...and the whole of the point was that there are these "science guys" that wonder if the thing is really there, or better put, not really there, or maybe "only" there...when it's looked at! Perceived. 

Maybe some of you guys saw it...whether it was a Tyson show or (I think more likely) "Through the Wormhole"...I don't really recall. Anyway...


----------



## bullethead (May 19, 2015)

Israel said:


> I find something Gem is saying unaddressed, almost passed by...as though it is understood in agreement, but really...not.
> And correct me Gem, as I have been interested in y'alls exchange.
> 
> When you all were speaking of "observation" it seems it was almost broken down into at least two divisions...with a simple "seeing" be assigned the first, and "testing", the second.
> ...



So you don't know what show it was,who was the host or if it was a guy or guys but the rest of the post is accurate?
That is some bandwith we are never getting back.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 19, 2015)

Israel said:


> I find something Gem is saying unaddressed, almost passed by...as though it is understood in agreement, but really...not.
> And correct me Gem, as I have been interested in y'alls exchange.
> 
> When you all were speaking of "observation" it seems it was almost broken down into at least two divisions...with a simple "seeing" be assigned the first, and "testing", the second.
> ...


I did not see a need to push the point any further. The responses were affirming that the point being made was agreed upon, although perhaps unawares.

Only the surface has been scratched.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What's the philosophical argument that supports that?


With empiricism, it would be identifying all the variables.

We "knew" that fish are cold blooded. Now we have the Opah.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 19, 2015)

Israel said:


> But here's where it got weird, in the sense of cool weird, for me. So, I'm watching some TV show a while ago, and it's all about the theories of "being"...of multiverses, or of some kind of holographic realities...and some other theory that some embrace (at least one theoretical physicist...somewhere...and they go into the nature of the universe (being if you will)...and this guy (or guys) I forget, even has a theory about what we perceive, and they show the moon ...like over a guys shoulder, and then they show the guy turning to "look" at the moon...and the whole of the point was that there are these "science guys" that wonder if the thing is really there, or better put, not really there, or maybe "only" there...when it's looked at! Perceived.
> 
> Maybe some of you guys saw it...whether it was a Tyson show or (I think more likely) "Through the Wormhole"...I don't really recall. Anyway...


I did not see it, we have not had TV for a few years now. It does remind me of a theory that I encountered years ago. The theory proposed that we are born with all of our memories in place, not in the brain but in the incorporeal mind. Everything that we experience is the transfer of the already existing memories.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." Einstein

Good stuff.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I did not see it, we have not had TV for a few years now. It does remind me of a theory that I encountered years ago. The theory proposed that we are born with all of our memories in place, not in the brain but in the incorporeal mind. Everything that we experience is the transfer of the already existing memories.
> 
> "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." Einstein
> 
> Good stuff.



"Creativity is intelligence having fun."   -E.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 19, 2015)

Israel said:


> But here's where it got weird, in the sense of cool weird, for me. So, I'm watching some TV show a while ago, and it's all about the theories of "being"...of multiverses, or of some kind of holographic realities...and some other theory that some embrace (at least one theoretical physicist...somewhere...and they go into the nature of the universe (being if you will)...and this guy (or guys) I forget, even has a theory about what we perceive, and they show the moon ...like over a guys shoulder, and then they show the guy turning to "look" at the moon...and the whole of the point was that there are these "science guys" that wonder if the thing is really there, or better put, not really there, or maybe "only" there...when it's looked at! Perceived.
> 
> Maybe some of you guys saw it...whether it was a Tyson show or (I think more likely) "Through the Wormhole"...I don't really recall. Anyway...



Don't really watch tv anymore, I could never find anything worth watching; instead I draw and read what strikes my fancy. At any rate, that sounds interesting enough; I think I could overcome my distaste for Tyson long enough to watch it (assuming he's narrating).

Science used to be called natural philosophy. It then shed that garment for strict empiricism. It's interesting to see that Science is now moving back towards a more naturalistic approach: more observation rather than experimentation. If it sounds good enough, and is sufficiently elegant, no need to "prove" it (using the term loosely).

I think, over-all, it'll be a good thing, though, there will be trade-offs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Don't really watch tv anymore, I could never find anything worth watching; instead I draw and read what strikes my fancy. At any rate, that sounds interesting enough; I think I could overcome my distaste for Tyson long enough to watch it (assuming he's narrating).
> 
> Science used to be called natural philosophy. It then shed that garment for strict empiricism. It's interesting to see that Science is now moving back towards a more naturalistic approach: more observation rather than experimentation. If it sounds good enough, and is sufficiently elegant, no need to "prove" it (using the term loosely).
> 
> I think, over-all, it'll be a good thing, though, there will be trade-offs.



Out of curiosity, what's your beef with Tyson?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 19, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Out of curiosity, what's your beef with Tyson?



Typical anti-theist. An astrophysicist and cosmologist who objects to the idea of God on grounds of an inability to adequately provide substantiated evidence, and yet, promotes the extraordinarily convoluted study of big bang cosmology as empirical? Does that strike no one else as odd? I could be misinterpreting his stance, but if this approaches his views, I take issue with it.

and then he says stuff like...
"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."
He's not a charlatan, not by a long shot; but he's got some views that bring into question, for me anyway, how much we should be listening to him with anything much more than passing interest.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Typical anti-theist. An astrophysicist and cosmologist who objects to the idea of God on grounds of an inability to adequately provide substantiated evidence, and yet, promotes the extraordinarily convoluted study of big bang cosmology as empirical? Does that strike no one else as odd? I could be misinterpreting his stance, but if this approaches his views, I take issue with it.
> 
> and then he says stuff like...
> "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."
> He's not a charlatan, not by a long shot; but he's got some views that bring into question, for me anyway, how much we should be listening to him with anything much more than passing interest.



Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don't know him personally so I can't categorize his stance. I've not watched him speak on the matter either. 

My life experience lines up with that statement about the universe wanting to kill us, though. If God is so benevolent then why did He feel the need to carp on my, and my kids', life/lives, and then leave us with no explanation except "the mysterious ways"?

I don't go full bore and reject God, but my life has shown me that he is at least inattentive and allows evil things to happen through, for lack of a better word, ignorance; or that he has an unimaginably cruel side to Him. The Flood corroborates the latter, but I try really hard not to draw conclusions until I'm staring the truth of the matter in the face. I do have my moments, though, where I lean a little more one way and then back the other, but the average climate is one of simply not knowing.


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Typical anti-theist. An astrophysicist and cosmologist who objects to the idea of God on grounds of an inability to adequately provide substantiated evidence, and yet, promotes the extraordinarily convoluted study of big bang cosmology as empirical? Does that strike no one else as odd? I could be misinterpreting his stance, but if this approaches his views, I take issue with it.
> 
> and then he says stuff like...
> "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."
> He's not a charlatan, not by a long shot; but he's got some views that bring into question, for me anyway, how much we should be listening to him with anything much more than passing interest.





> When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."


I would be interested to hear why you think that isn't accurate?
Although I would change "wants to kill us" to "can kill us".
I agree with his point that we always hear "look how perfect the world is for us".
I think you have to seriously ignore a lot to make that statement.


> An astrophysicist and cosmologist who objects to the idea of God on grounds of an inability to adequately provide substantiated evidence, and yet, promotes the extraordinarily convoluted study of big bang cosmology as empirical? Does that strike no one else as odd?


I don't think its odd when you consider what empirical means in science.


> In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.


That first sentence to me is really important. 
Empirical evidence is required for a HYPOTHESIS.
And we know a hypothesis is not a statement of fact.
Just that the evidence makes that hypothesis valid (but not fact).
And I don't know the guy or his work so Im not sticking up for him. Im just going by this conversation.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Typical anti-theist. An astrophysicist and cosmologist who objects to the idea of God on grounds of an inability to adequately provide substantiated evidence, and yet, promotes the extraordinarily convoluted study of big bang cosmology as empirical? Does that strike no one else as odd? I could be misinterpreting his stance, but if this approaches his views, I take issue with it.
> 
> and then he says stuff like...
> "Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of all religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."
> He's not a charlatan, not by a long shot; but he's got some views that bring into question, for me anyway, how much we should be listening to him with anything much more than passing interest.



http://


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 19, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I would be interested to hear why you think that isn't accurate?
> Although I would change "wants to kill us" to "can kill us".
> I agree with his point that we always hear "look how perfect the world is for us".
> I think you have to seriously ignore a lot to make that statement.



And yet you so quickly dismiss how "perfect" the world is amongst the supposed chaos; to me, he also seems quick to dismiss the astonishing, mind boggling nature of that fact, for no other reason then to get a "quick point" against those of differing mindsets.



WaltL1 said:


> I don't think its odd when you consider what empirical means in science.



It means what it means everywhere else, and so I still find it odd. There's no empirical evidence of what happened before the big bang; there's no empirical evidence of there being more than one Universe: none.



WaltL1 said:


> That first sentence to me is really important.
> Empirical evidence is required for a HYPOTHESIS.
> And we know a hypothesis is not a statement of fact.
> Just that the evidence makes that hypothesis valid (but not fact).
> And I don't know the guy or his work so Im not sticking up for him. Im just going by this conversation.



That's a nice view to have, but, none the less, naïve. Science is full of biases and assumptions on the part of the scientist; this is one of the main reasons that science is beginning its journey back to older mindsets. All you have to do to "prove" this is to write some article that claims to end any and all opposing debate to something like evolution, or climate change; present it to some board for grant consideration, and I promise you will be able to eat at the finest Persian restaurants that night. I would love to think that science is pure, humble, and allows itself to change freely with whatever evidence happens to show itself, but people get in the way of that; the unfaithful as much, if not more, than the faithful.


EDIT: I hope I don't come across as too grating, I don't intend to. I've not read any biography of his, nor have I studied his work; I've heard snippets of his conversation, and make some broad judgments based on that...to broad, in all honesty. If there's one thing I have learned on this forum is that the non-believers, generally, do not reach their current views by lack of thought, but by an abundance of it. If believers showed that much attentiveness to their beliefs...well, "the dungeon" might not be as full as is perceived. I thank y'all for this change of mind, and your patience with me as I reached it.

Y'all have a good evenin'


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> And yet you so quickly dismiss how "perfect" the world is amongst the supposed chaos; to me, he also seems quick to dismiss the astonishing, mind boggling nature of that fact, for no other reason then to get a "quick point" against those of differing mindsets.





God is great....


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> With empiricism, it would be identifying all the variables.
> 
> We "knew" that fish are cold blooded. Now we have the Opah.



And science books will reflect that knowledge.  If something is found to be untrue in a religious text it doesn't get changed (except for Buddhism).  That makes religious texts a bad place to go to for up to date facts.


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Bullet, your post #218 has valid arguments. If I continue to challenge the reliability of observation(sensation) as a means of acquiring truth, I will just be repeating myself.
> 
> This is not just a Christian vs. Atheist discussion. Many Christians also view empiricism as valid. But the Bible gives many examples showing the unreliability of the senses.





ambush80 said:


> And why is it an authority?





gemcgrew said:


> For the Christian? It is the Word of God.



It's true because it says it's true?


----------



## WaltL1 (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> And yet you so quickly dismiss how "perfect" the world is amongst the supposed chaos; to me, he also seems quick to dismiss the astonishing, mind boggling nature of that fact, for no other reason then to get a "quick point" against those of differing mindsets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> And yet you so quickly dismiss how "perfect" the world is amongst the supposed chaos; to me, he also seems quick to dismiss the astonishing, mind boggling nature of that fact, for no other reason then to get a "quick point" against those of differing mindsets.


You would have to define what you mean by "perfect amongst the chaos". Perfect for us? Think of all the inventions and things we do to stay alive and all the seemingly insignificant things that kill us every day, like a mosquito, or the sun, regardless of our bug sprays and hats and SPF clothing etc.
And different mindsets played no part in what I see.


> It means what it means everywhere else, and so I still find it odd. There's no empirical evidence of what happened before the big bang; there's no empirical evidence of there being more than one Universe: none.


I'll just say that evidence can be empirical but the hypothesis wrong.
A flat tire is empirical evidence that the tire went flat. You might hypothesize that their is a nail in it or you might hypothesize that someone let the air out. Both are valid based on the empirical evidence. Then you have to keep going with it.


> That's a nice view to have, but, none the less, naïve. Science is full of biases and assumptions on the part of the scientist; this is one of the main reasons that science is beginning its journey back to older mindsets. All you have to do to "prove" this is to write some article that claims to end any and all opposing debate to something like evolution, or climate change; present it to some board for grant consideration, and I promise you will be able to eat at the finest Persian restaurants that night. I would love to think that science is pure, humble, and allows itself to change freely with whatever evidence happens to show itself, but people get in the way of that; the unfaithful as much, if not more, than the faithful.


I think you would be naïve to think Im naïve about science. I'm perfectly aware that butter was bad for me yesterday, today it was good for me and tomorrow who knows.
But that doesn't change that Im tapping on a keyboard here and you are there reading what Im tapping etc.
Science being comprised of scientists, who are people, will never be perfect for that reason.


----------



## Israel (May 19, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So you don't know what show it was,who was the host or if it was a guy or guys but the rest of the post is accurate?
> That is some bandwith we are never getting back.



I guess I made it sound too much like I was recommending the show as to prove some sort of point in particular about observation. I wasn't. Only that even in "scientific circles", there are some theories of which...being/awareness/consciousness/perception is constituted...that are a little "novel".
The mention of the show was just an aside.

If there was any "point" to the post it is this...what we measure with, test with, determine with...in every sense has an indisputable effect. And not merely of our perception, but our apprehension. 
But I didn't come up with that, but if I have come to any understanding it's because I was made to believe it. 
A disciple reads of Lazarus/Mary/Martha, and their experience of Jesus Christ.
He also reads of Herod...and Jesus' silence before him when sent by Pilate to him.

Using a consciousness to apprehend, even perceive, The consciousness of all is shown to be only as effective as The consciousness allows.
And we are told, often, in fact, through the scriptures, the "how" of how a man is, and in that his approach to God, has an effect. You like power? Control? To "know"? The receiving of a port into which God has total access...is not "your own mind", nor my own...that place God makes himself known to a man is in a man...and that man is neither you, nor I.


As to the show...it could have been this one:


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 19, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> http://



Mr. Tyson is very intelligent, he really is, but he's said some lamentably foolish things.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 19, 2015)

So is that guy an Atheist or Agnostic?


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Mr. Tyson is very intelligent, he really is, but he's said some lamentably foolish things.



What things?


----------



## ambush80 (May 19, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> So is that guy an Atheist or Agnostic?



What did he say?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What things?



Watch the video...


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Watch the video...



Why don't you be more specific?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 21, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Why don't you be more specific?



The video in post 238...


----------



## ambush80 (May 21, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The video in post 238...



Did you watch it?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Did you watch it?



Of course, that's why I responded to it.


----------



## ambush80 (May 22, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Of course, that's why I responded to it.




How about we discuss one of his stupid ideas at a time?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (May 24, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How about we discuss one of his stupid ideas at a time?



You can start with how he said his opinion was not an opinion, if you want.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2015)




----------

