# A rabbi cross examines Christianity



## atlashunter (Nov 14, 2017)

Interesting talk.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

I wasn't expecting the Grateful Dead /Jefferson Airplane reference from him 
But very thought provoking with some in your face facts mixed in.
He's a good speaker.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I wasn't expecting the Grateful Dead /Jefferson Airplane reference from him
> But very thought provoking with some in your face facts mixed in.
> He's a good speaker.



What he said at the 1:08:00 mark was interesting. I hope he is right that there are more Christians investigating the origins of their religion. I suspect he is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> What he said at the 1:08:00 mark was interesting. I hope he is right that there are more Christians investigating the origins of their religion. I suspect he is.


I have no doubt there are. Just the fact that you can now hop on the interwebs and do TONS of research on your own, there are going to be a certain number of Christians who do exactly that.
And as the rabbi pointed out, I'm sure there are a number of people/Christians who just want to worship God in the original way. Whatever that way was. So they try to find out. Fortunately for them its pretty well documented.
The BIG question is -
will that research prompt ANY type of action out of the person?
I'm not expecting any of our Christian friends to pop in a few days from now and let us know they are Jewish now.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

Lol the Jews have always rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Nothing new.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Lol the Jews have always rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Nothing new.



Ever ask yourself why?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I have no doubt there are. Just the fact that you can now hop on the interwebs and do TONS of research on your own, there are going to be a certain number of Christians who do exactly that.
> And as the rabbi pointed out, I'm sure there are a number of people/Christians who just want to worship God in the original way. Whatever that way was. So they try to find out. Fortunately for them its pretty well documented.
> The BIG question is -
> will that research prompt ANY type of action out of the person?
> I'm not expecting any of our Christian friends to pop in a few days from now and let us know they are Jewish now.



I don't expect that either. On the other hand I do think Christianity is in trouble. It certainly is in the west and I have to think education has something to do with that. What will fill the vacuum that is left is a concern. I hope it's not Islam. Talk about jumping from the pan to the fire.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

Peter
2. James
3. John
4. Andrew
5. Bartholomew or Nathanael
6. James, the Lesser or Younger
7. Judas
8. Jude or Thaddeus
9. Matthew or Levi
10. Philip
11. Simon the Zealot
12. Thomas

Never thought of themselves of helping in the "starting a new religion". Just those who had witnessed the fulfillment of _all practice._


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I don't expect that either. On the other hand I do think Christianity is in trouble. It certainly is in the west and I have to think education has something to do with that. What will fill the vacuum that is left is a concern. I hope it's not Islam. Talk about jumping from the pan to the fire.



Yep; just like it was, and for the same reasons it was, in the second century.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Ever ask yourself why?



Nope. I'm happy believing what I do and it's not costing me anything. If there's nothing out there other than the grave when I'm done, I won't ever know anyway, I will just lay there and rot. But at least in this life as I know it, I've got hope for something better.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. I'm happy believing what I do and it's not costing me anything. If there's nothing out there other than the grave when I'm done, I won't ever know anyway, I will just lay there and rot. But at least in this life as I know it, I've got hope for something better.



Not me. If I only have one life to live I want as much as possible to do it conforming my mind to reality. To do that I must seek out error in my understanding. If I'm wrong about something I want to know. I'd rather have no hope than a false hope. Nothing is more sacred than what is true.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. I'm happy believing what I do and it's not costing me anything. If there's nothing out there other than the grave when I'm done, I won't ever know anyway, I will just lay there and rot. But at least in this life as I know it, I've got hope for something better.



^This is a prime example of how belief not only fails to give someone greater discernment, it actually stifles it. "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." No curiosity. No willingness to explore questions whose answers might put the belief at risk. It's like a virus of the mind acting to protect itself from discovery and remediation.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Not me. If I only have one life to live I want as much as possible to do it conforming my mind to reality. To do that I must seek out error in my understanding. If I'm wrong about something I want to know. I'd rather have no hope than a false hope. Nothing is more sacred than what is true.



yes.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> ^This is a prime example of how belief not only fails to give someone greater discernment, it actually stifles it. "The bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." No curiosity. No willingness to explore questions whose answers might put the belief at risk. It's like a virus of the mind acting to protect itself from discovery and remediation.



If that was all that I did......you'd be correct. Just because I didn't turn away doesn't mean I didn't prove it to myself. I don't have to follow your path to be considered "right".


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> I don't expect that either. On the other hand I do think Christianity is in trouble. It certainly is in the west and I have to think education has something to do with that. What will fill the vacuum that is left is a concern. I hope it's not Islam. Talk about jumping from the pan to the fire.





> On the other hand I do think Christianity is in trouble


I guess it depends on how we would define "in trouble".
Certainly its power/influence on society overall is on the downward slope. 
But as a belief system I don't think its going anywhere soon.
But yeah, the question will be how freely it may be practiced in the future.


> Talk about jumping from the pan to the fire


No doubt. I can safely admit that when I consider my home defense arsenal/plan, not once have I envisioned a hoard of Christians being the ones I was defending against.
Honestly don't think I would have that same level of comfort under different circumstances.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. I'm happy believing what I do and it's not costing me anything. If there's nothing out there other than the grave when I'm done, I won't ever know anyway, I will just lay there and rot. But at least in this life as I know it, I've got hope for something better.



Borrowed from ky55's thread because it is so fitting.



> "Like the most of you, I was raised among people who knew - who were certain. They did not reason or investigate. They had no doubts. They knew that they had the truth. In their creed there was no guess — no perhaps. They had a revelation from God. They knew the beginning of things. They knew that God commenced to create one Monday morning, four thousand and four years before Christ. They knew that in the eternity — back of that morning, he had done nothing. They knew that it took him six days to make the earth — all plants, all animals, all life, and all the globes that wheel in space. They knew exactly what he did each day and when he rested. They knew the origin, the cause of evil, of all crime, of all disease and death.
> 
> At the same time they knew that God created man in his own image and was perfectly satisfied with his work... They knew all about the Flood -- knew that God, with the exception of eight, drowned all his children -- the old and young -- the bowed patriarch and the dimpled babe -- the young man and the merry maiden -- the loving mother and the laughing child -- because his mercy endureth forever. They knew too, that he drowned the beasts and birds -- everything that walked or crawled or flew -- because his loving kindness is over all his works. They knew that God, for the purpose of civilizing his children, had devoured some with earthquakes, destroyed some with storms of fire, killed some with his lightnings, millions with famine, with pestilence, and sacrificed countless thousands upon the fields of war. They knew that it was necessary to believe these things and to love God. They knew that there could be no salvation except by faith, and through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Borrowed from ky55's thread because it is so fitting.




"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know"

This would be contradictory to say for the Christian. This concept removes the foundation in their belief. What good is faith to them at this point?

Unless.....I said I don't know what's beyond the horizon, but I believe "this is"..........based on........"my faith"


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> "We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know"
> 
> This would be contradictory to say for the Christian. This concept removes the foundation in their belief. What good is faith to them at this point?
> 
> Unless.....I said I don't know what's beyond the horizon, but I believe "this is"..........based on........"my faith"



Is it really contradictory? The excerpt you copied is speaking to knowledge. Faith speaks to belief. If it is true that being honest about ignorance contradicts faith then that would mean faith was a dishonest position.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Is it really contradictory? The excerpt you copied is speaking to knowledge. Faith speaks to belief. If it is true that being honest about ignorance contradicts faith then that would mean faith was a dishonest position.



Honestly doesn't contradict ignorance. To say I don't know what's out there contradicts my position of believing that God is out there.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Honestly doesn't contradict ignorance. To say I don't know what's out there contradicts my position of believing that God is out there.



How does it contradict it?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Suppose you were speaking with a scientist and he told you "I don't know what is beyond the observable universe but I believe there is a multiverse." Would you say he contradicted himself?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Suppose you were speaking with a scientist and he told you "I don't know what is beyond the observable universe but I believe there is a multiverse." Would you say he contradicted himself?



It would have to based on something for him to believe that.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> It would have to based on something for him to believe that.



Sure. Or take the Higgs boson. They had reason to believe it existed but they didn't know until they built the large hadron collider.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

The point is belief and knowledge are not the same.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Borrowed from ky55's thread because it is so fitting.



Atlas, thank you for posting that Ingersoll quote again.
Y'all get into discussions here that are so far over my head that I'll never figure them out.
But...
the quote pretty much simplifies my reasons for taking the direction I did a few years ago.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 15, 2017)

It's a good one! I need to add him to the reading list.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> It's a good one! I need to add him to the reading list.




“My dog," he said, "just barks and plays -has all he wants to eat. He never works- has no trouble about business. In a little while he dies, and that is all. I work with all my strength. I have no time to play. I have trouble every day. In a little while I will die, and then I go to HE!!. I wish that I had been a dog.”
― Robert G. Ingersoll, Lectures - Why I Am An Agnostic


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 15, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> The point is belief and knowledge are not the same.



I would agree with that. But for the point I guess I was trying to make for contradiction, if I say I believe God is out there based on my faith, but I don't know if he is, then my faith is nothing. In a sense I'm saying he's there, wouldn't I contradict myself if I said but I'm not sure, or I don't know?


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2017)

I believe I have knowledge.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree with that. But for the point I guess I was trying to make for contradiction, if I say I believe God is out there based on my faith, but I don't know if he is, then my faith is nothing. In a sense I'm saying he's there, wouldn't I contradict myself if I said but I'm not sure, or I don't know?



That would be a truthful statement. You don't know but you believe. You may even have reasons for your belief but you don't know. Claiming you know there is a god or that you know what happens after death is no different from a scientist claiming they know there is a multiverse because of their faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> That would be a truthful statement. You don't know but you believe. You may even have reasons for your belief but you don't know. Claiming you know there is a god or that you know what happens after death is no different from a scientist claiming they know there is a multiverse because of their faith.


Good analogy.
Its interesting that when the topic is science, a number of Christian's arguments are - They don't "know", they are just guessing, that's just what they think blah blah blah
Its a rejection based on the premise that they don't "know".
Make that topic God... and all of a sudden "know" doesn't mean the same thing as when the topic was science.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> That would be a truthful statement. You don't know but you believe. You may even have reasons for your belief but you don't know. Claiming you know there is a god or that you know what happens after death is no different from a scientist claiming they know there is a multiverse because of their faith.



I can make a "double slit experiment" in my house.  I could then learn all the math that describes what I see.  I then might (or might not) be led to believe in _THE POSSIBILITY _of a Multiverse.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I can make a "double slit experiment" in my house.  I could then learn all the math that describes what I see.  I then might (or might not) be led to believe in _THE POSSIBILITY _of a Multiverse.



Yep. If a scientist gives reasons why they believe the evidence points toward a probability for a multiverse but admits we still don't know for sure, I'm all ears. If they say they know there is a multiverse because of their faith. If they start talking about how they wouldn't want to live in a universe without a multiverse. If they say they are happy believing in a multiverse because it gives them hope. If they do that then I can't take them seriously.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Yep. If a scientist gives reasons why they believe the evidence points toward a probability for a multiverse but admits we still don't know for sure, I'm all ears. If they say they know there is a multiverse because of their faith. If they start talking about how they wouldn't want to live in a universe without a multiverse. If they say they are happy believing in a multiverse because it gives them hope. If they do that then I can't take them seriously.



Sam Harris uses that analogy but instead of "Multiverse" he uses "A diamond as big as a refrigerator buried in my back yard".   It's funny either way.  Your analogy is actually better because we can test for a diamond in the backyard.  Also, "What harm is there if I believe in.......?"


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Good analogy.
> Its interesting that when the topic is science, a number of Christian's arguments are - They don't "know", they are just guessing, that's just what they think blah blah blah
> Its a rejection based on the premise that they don't "know".
> Make that topic God... and all of a sudden "know" doesn't mean the same thing as when the topic was science.


But the flip side to that is when comes to Christianity, science says you must have facts.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> But the flip side to that is when comes to Christianity, science says you must have facts.



Maybe I just need more coffee but you lost me.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe I just need more coffee but you lost me.



Nah it's most likely me misreading and not really focusing. Currently waiting on my son to come out of outpatient surgery.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nah it's most likely me misreading and not really focusing. Currently waiting on my son to come out of outpatient surgery.



I hope he's OK.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I hope he's OK.



Ditto


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nah it's most likely me misreading and not really focusing. Currently waiting on my son to come out of outpatient surgery.



I hope your Son does well.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I hope he's OK.





atlashunter said:


> Ditto





bullethead said:


> I hope your Son does well.



I really appreciate that. Seems all is well so far.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I really appreciate that. Seems all is well so far.



Good news.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite, hope all is well for your son!


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> "We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know"
> 
> This would be contradictory to say for the Christian. This concept removes the foundation in their belief. What good is faith to them at this point?
> 
> Unless.....I said I don't know what's beyond the horizon, but I believe "this is"..........based on........"my faith"


Sorry for going backwards here but just wanted to comment -
This was something that nagged at me when I was a believer.
Why?
Why is this? -


> This would be contradictory to say for the Christian.


This -


> we must say that we do not know


Is in FACT the TRUTH.
Regardless of what any of us may believe or not believe the FACT is we do not know.
So WHY is it contradictory for the Christian (or any other religion) to say what is in fact..... the truth?
How can that be?

There's something not kosher there.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Regardless of what any of us may believe or not believe the FACT is we do not know.
> So WHY is it contradictory for the Christian (or any other religion) to say what is in fact..... the truth?
> How can that be?
> 
> There's something not kosher there.


If I said that I believe that God is out there, and then said but I don't know if he is or isn't......what does that do for my faith? I may be looking at it all wrong, I just feel like it's a contradictory statement. It's because of my faith that I do believe he's out there.




WaltL1 said:


> Spotlite, hope all is well for your son!



Thanks Walt - everything went great. Home now watching Murder in Coweta county and eating chicken stew.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 16, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry for going backwards here but just wanted to comment -
> This was something that nagged at me when I was a believer.
> Why?
> Why is this? -
> ...



Because if they experienced it or witnessed it is factual to them. You did not so therefore you don't believe.  Makes perfect sense actually.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 16, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Sorry for going backwards here but just wanted to comment -
> This was something that nagged at me when I was a believer.
> Why?
> Why is this? -
> ...



That which is “not kosher” (not satisfactory) is an internalized understanding of who, or what, God is; which has been placed in/allotted to/imbued upon the Believer by supernatural means.  Its transcendence renders impotent all empirical applications —thus the application of empirical means can only produce unsatisfactory results.

This says it at least as well.


red neck richie said:


> Because if they experienced it or witnessed it is factual to them. You did not so therefore you don't believe.  Makes perfect sense actually.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 16, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> That which is “not kosher” (not satisfactory) is an internalized understanding of who, or what, God is; which has been placed in/allotted to/imbued upon the Believer by supernatural means.  Its transcendence renders impotent all empirical applications —thus the application of empirical means can only produce unsatisfactory results.
> 
> This says it at least as well.



I try to break it down into basics. I didn't realize  we were dealing with genius. Simplifying fractions if you will. This  says it at least as well. Really?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> That which is “not kosher” (not satisfactory) is an internalized understanding of who, or what, God is; which has been placed in/allotted to/imbued upon the Believer by supernatural means.  Its transcendence renders impotent all empirical applications —thus the application of empirical means can only produce unsatisfactory results.
> 
> This says it at least as well.





red neck richie said:


> I try to break it down into basics. I didn't realize  we were dealing with genius. Simplifying fractions if you will. This  says it at least as well. Really?



You're saying the same thing:  "I can't prove it to you.  It's magic."


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> You're saying the same thing:  "I can't prove it to you.  It's magic."



Yeah your the magic man and I'm el diablo. shake and bake. clueless I tell you.
Centerpin.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Lots of folks swear on a stack of bibles they were abducted by aliens. Guess that makes it a fact. Oh and Sasquatch is real too.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Yeah your the magic man and I'm el diablo. shake and bake. clueless I tell you.
> Centerpin.



I broke it down to the most basic of basics.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Lots of folks swear on a stack of bibles they were abducted by aliens. Guess that makes it a fact. Oh and Sasquatch is real too.



You were abducted? I would like to hear your story.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Nope. I'm happy believing what I do and it's not costing me anything. If there's nothing out there other than the grave when I'm done, I won't ever know anyway, I will just lay there and rot. But at least in this life as I know it, I've got hope for something better.



I don't get what what you mean by "hope for something better." Better than what? Better than the life you are living? That would depend on your attitude I guess. If your life isn't great, strive to make it better. Anyone on this forum is living a better life than the luckiest person in a North Korean prison, for example.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I broke it down to the most basic of basics.



Genius. You have it figured out.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Lots of folks swear on a stack of bibles they were abducted by aliens. Guess that makes it a fact. Oh and Sasquatch is real too.



Sorry but this seems like a good spot for this one lol 
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/colorado-hunter-claims-he-was-sexually-assaulted-by-a-sasquatch/


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

oldfella1962 said:


> I don't get what what you mean by "hope for something better." Better than what? Better than the life you are living? That would depend on your attitude I guess. If your life isn't great, strive to make it better. Anyone on this forum is living a better life than the luckiest person in a North Korean prison, for example.



No not the life I'm living. I couldn't have a better life. What I meant hope for something better is hoping for something better than laying there rotting.


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Sorry but this seems like a good spot for this one lol
> http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/colorado-hunter-claims-he-was-sexually-assaulted-by-a-sasquatch/


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 16, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No not the life I'm living. I couldn't have a better life. What I meant hope for some better is hoping for something better than laying there rotting.



Well it's not like you would mind if that was the case. Eternal life on the other hand I think would be a curse. People who long for that haven't really thought it through. As Woody Allen said, forever is a really long time, especially the closer you get to the end.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 16, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Well it's not like you would mind if that was the case. Eternal life on the other hand I think would be a curse. People who long for that haven't really thought it through. As Woody Allen said, forever is a really long time, especially the closer you get to the end.



It is a humbling thought trying to envision something that never ends. And yes it could be a curse.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I try to break it down into basics. I didn't realize  we were dealing with genius. Simplifying fractions if you will. This  says it at least as well. Really?



I think 1 Cor., Ch. 2 tells us that either of us would be wrong to give any weight to the style of the words.  We were just trying to express vs. 14 as we have experienced it; with full awareness that it is not our words that are persuasive.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> If I said that I believe that God is out there, and then said but I don't know if he is or isn't......what does that do for my faith? I may be looking at it all wrong, I just feel like it's a contradictory statement. It's because of my faith that I do believe he's out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> If I said that I believe that God is out there, and then said but I don't know if he is or isn't......what does that do for my faith?


See that's exactly my point.
It is in fact true that you believe God is out there.
It is in fact true that you don't KNOW if he is or isn't (until you are sitting at the right hand of him, then you KNOW.)
If one truth contradicts another truth then there is something wrong in the equation somewhere.
And I agree with you -


> I just feel like it's a contradictory statement


You can't say you know he's out there AND say you don't know if he's out there at the same time.

If we have to protect what we have faith in from what is in fact true... then something is wrong in the equation somewhere.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No not the life I'm living. I couldn't have a better life. What I meant hope for something better is hoping for something better than laying there rotting.


Its a shame that Christianity/religion can't be left simple like this ^
I can find no fault in someone hoping there is something better than laying there rotting.
Its the division and the wars and the exclusivity and the domination and the forced participation and the judgement and all the other crap that goes with it........


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> See that's exactly my point.
> It is in fact true that you believe God is out there.
> It is in fact true that you don't KNOW if he is or isn't (until you are sitting at the right hand of him, then you KNOW.)
> If one truth contradicts another truth then there is something wrong in the equation somewhere.
> ...



By the same reasoning I don't know that the moon is there until I am there.  It may be somewhat comforting to know that Walt, as well as others, agree with my belief that the moon is there, but that does not add one whit to my knowledge that it is there (it only shows that Walt, and others, agree with me); if I find that no one, or a limited number of people, believe as I do on a particular issue, I am not necessarily wrong, but it probably indicates that I should take another look at the issue.

Facts are everywhere, although quite slipper, and tend to have many imitators; truth, on the other hand, is quite hard to find, sometimes being well camouflaged, and tends to be quick as all get out.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2017)

Jesus Christ is simple.
He simply knows us. Inside and out.
All an open book to Him.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> By the same reasoning I don't know that the moon is there until I am there.  It may be somewhat comforting to know that Walt, as well as others, agree with my belief that the moon is there, but that does not add one whit to my knowledge that it is there (it only shows that Walt, and others, agree with me); if I find that no one, or a limited number of people, believe as I do on a particular issue, I am not necessarily wrong, but it probably indicates that I should take another look at the issue.
> 
> Facts are everywhere, although quite slipper, and tend to have many imitators; truth, on the other hand, is quite hard to find, sometimes being well camouflaged, and tends to be quick as all get out.





> By the same reasoning I don't know that the moon is there until I am there.  It may be somewhat comforting to know that Walt, as well as others, agree with my belief that the moon is there, but that does not add one whit to my knowledge that it is there (it only shows that Walt, and others, agree with me)


I can't speak for the others, but Walt is going to agree with you because he watched the dudes take one small step for man on TV, they brought back samples, left things there that we can see are still there, I can see it, etc etc.
So Walt agrees with you because IN FACT the moon is there whether you or Walt has been there.


> By the same reasoning


No, very different reasoning.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

>>edit<<  I watched it TV also, I even recall that I was standing in the Personnel Office at Port Hueneme. >>edit<<


And there are many who believe, and exhibit evidence, that it is all fake.

"Different reasoning" how?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

Israel said:


> Jesus Christ is simple.
> He simply knows us. Inside and out.
> All an open book to Him.


Like I said -


> Its a shame that Christianity/religion can't be left simple like this ^
> Its the division and the wars and the exclusivity and the domination and the forced participation and the judgement and all the other crap that goes with it........


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> And there are many who believe, and exhibit evidence, that it is all fake.
> 
> "Different reasoning" how?





> And there are many who believe, and exhibit evidence, that it is all fake.


And their belief and evidence has been given the appropriate consideration.


> "Different reasoning" how?


You are comparing -


> It is in fact true that you don't KNOW if he is or isn't (until you are sitting at the right hand of him, then you KNOW.)


With -


> By the same reasoning I don't know that the moon is there until I am there.


Moon = proven to be there whether you have been there or not. Whether you believe it or not. You can meet all the criteria for "knowing its there" based on FACTS without having to step foot on it.
What happens after death =
-Insert cricket sound here-

To know the moon is there involves one direction of reasoning because there are known facts involved to be considered.
To know what happens after death involves a completely different direction of reasoning because there are none.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Facts are everywhere, although quite slipper, and tend to have many imitators; truth, on the other hand, is quite hard to find, sometimes being well camouflaged, and tends to be quick as all get out.



Facts change.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

There is a LOT of intellectual dishonesty flowing in here.

You can deny the moon exists but it's forces act on Earth and are observable.  You can see the moon. But deny it is there. You can see pieces of the moon in museums but pretend it is something else. 
You can pretend/think/believe to know a god yet refuse to admit out loud that you really don't know what if anything lies beyond life now. As long as you are truthful to yourself you do not have to announce it on a forum. You have to continue on with whatever makes you happy. It doesn't have to be the truth.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Facts change.



To suit


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> To suit



 sometimes, and sometimes because they are superceded by other "facts"


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Facts change.


Some do, some don't.
I'm not sure that the argument -
"Facts aren't actually facts because they MIGHT change" is a good one.
If that were the case there would be no such thing as a fact.
"A round wheel rolls better than a square one" is NOT a fact because facts change??


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> sometimes, and sometimes because they are superceded by other "facts"



Claims are made all the time in here but only a handful of gentleman consistently back them up. 
Anytime that you want to join the group all you have to do is step forward to back-up.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> There is a LOT of intellectual dishonesty flowing in here.
> 
> You can deny the moon exists but it's forces act on Earth and are observable.  You can see the moon. But deny it is there. You can see pieces of the moon in museums but pretend it is something else.
> You can pretend/think/believe to know a god yet refuse to admit out loud that you really don't know what if anything lies beyond life now. As long as you are truthful to yourself you do not have to announce it on a forum. You have to continue on with whatever makes you happy. It doesn't have to be the truth.



So only empiricism qualifies as honesty ... got it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Some do, some don't.
> I'm not sure that the argument -
> "Facts aren't actually facts because they MIGHT change" is a good one.
> If that were the case there would be no such thing as a fact.
> "A round wheel rolls better than a square one" is NOT a fact because facts change??



Many of the examples given in here seem perfect for the one specific scenario that is on their mind at the time, and the fingers can't type quick enough to get it known. Reality is that in the rush to use that example they do not take the time to test it against other scenarios that blow the original example out of the water.
Unfortunately, they carry on clinging to their initial example despite it being debunked and refuted.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Some do, some don't.
> I'm not sure that the argument -
> "Facts aren't actually facts because they MIGHT change" is a good one.
> If that were the case there would be no such thing as a fact.
> "A round wheel rolls better than a square one" is NOT a fact because facts change??



I agree that some facts are more sure than others, however, even they are susceptible to change.  Imagine a zero friction medium.

Gota go.  Must meet the Dr. schedule, even though they seldom do.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> See that's exactly my point.
> It is in fact true that you believe God is out there.
> It is in fact true that you don't KNOW if he is or isn't (until you are sitting at the right hand of him, then you KNOW.)
> If one truth contradicts another truth then there is something wrong in the equation somewhere.
> ...


I see what you're saying, and agree, but from a "spiritual" perspective "knowing God is out there" because of my faith and my walk with him  is different than knowing the moon is out there based on what we have seen. John 14 vs 17 and Epeshians 1 vs 17


WaltL1 said:


> Its a shame that Christianity/religion can't be left simple like this ^
> I can find no fault in someone hoping there is something better than laying there rotting.
> Its the division and the wars and the exclusivity and the domination and the forced participation and the judgement and all the other crap that goes with it........


That I agree with!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> So only empiricism qualifies as honesty ... got it.



No, not at all. I did not even remotely say that.
But in your example, the moon, it fits.
You using the moon as your example and sticking with it is on you.
In addition to the senses, I also mentioned the effects that the moon has on the Earth, which without the moon being there conditions would change drastically. 
But, by all means,  go with the only thing that pops into your mind and try to make it sound like you were not given other examples.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I see what you're saying, and agree, but from a "spiritual" perspective "knowing God is out there" because of my faith and my walk with him  is different than knowing the moon is out there based on what we have seen. John 14 vs 17 and Epeshians 1 vs 17
> 
> That I agree with!


You agree up to the point where faith wont let you agree.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You agree up to the point where faith wont let you agree.



Short answer, yes. Remove faith from it, and I would agree 100%. But I can't remove faith from it, to do that would mean that I am throwing everything that believe in out the window.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> No, not at all. I did not even remotely say that.
> But in your example, the moon, it fits.
> You using the moon as your example and sticking with it is on you.
> In addition to the senses, I also mentioned the effects that the moon has on the Earth, which without the moon being there conditions would change drastically.
> But, by all means,  go with the only thing that pops into your mind and try to make it sound like you were not given other examples.



Based on the "fact" that gravitational observations are nonempirical.

Thanks for your input.

Now I REALLY gota to.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Genius. You have it figured out.




I would recommend that you consider my conclusions thoughtfully.  What could it hurt?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 17, 2017)

> >>edit<< I watched it TV also, I even recall that I was standing in the Personnel Office at Port Hueneme. >>edit<<


I was a kid but I already had a pretty good understanding of space travel


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Short answer, yes. Remove faith from it, and I would agree 100%. But I can't remove faith from it, to do that would mean that I am throwing everything that believe in out the window.



Yep. You choose to believe in what you are uncertain of.
I get it.
Rarely in any other aspect of life do people let their guard down like that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Based on the "fact" that gravitational observations are nonempirical.
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> 
> Now I REALLY gota to.



And that it keeps large hunks of rocks from slamming into us.
Causes behavioural changes. 
Climate changes..


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 17, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yep. You choose to believe in what you are uncertain of.
> I get it.
> Rarely in any other aspect of life do people let their guard down like that.



Yea but for me, I don't feel the uncertainty of it.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 17, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Lots of folks swear on a stack of bibles they were abducted by aliens. Guess that makes it a fact. Oh and Sasquatch is real too.



that's why sometimes UFO's crash - sasquatch is piloting.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2017)

Having had to wipe egg from my face on multiple occasions is not my preferred past time. But, it has also never been unfitting. It's perfect.

The thing is, I never really know when I am setting myself up for it, I rarely know (but do have as sincere a hope as I imagine I could have _in sincerity_) to learn to navigate in faith, which is good...and not in presumption...which isn't.

I see the great chasm of "name dropping" that easily swallows a man, and all its attendant means of disguise that lead to the same thing (well, I don't see them _all_, but what I have seen of that presumption do lead, all of them, to a darkness.)

So, how to even begin to speak "about God" without sounding the presumptuous name dropper? I mean...of all the _names _one could drop..."God" kinda trumps them all.

So that's the conundrum often faced. If the inner attitude (who really knows all of their own?) is one of "getting over" on another by such name dropping, the "I know God and you don't, nyah nyah nyah" thing...well, it's not only that the God I believe I am coming to know has no part with that...He actively hates it to the point of making sure the egg lands precisely where it needs to.
But, saying "I know that" does not in any way secure my place of walking according to it. I can tell you Jesus is humble and kind...but let's face it, I put the lie to that "of my own self" when I get all haughty and ill tempered. Of what good then, is such knowledge? It is more condemning than beneficial...when found in that estate. (but here you either trust me...or not...simple "egg" on such a face is so far a merciful thing than a more deserving and righteous alternative) But even here, it is wise to not presume..."it will always just be an egg to the face".

So, how to be true in a thing, even if, or when...even the truest and simplest declaration will surely make you eligible to be (if not in truth...) at least eligible of the accusation that leads to a death penalty. (He blasphemes saying He is the Son of God, and thus making himself equal to God!)...Which if one were truly attentive would show Jesus always referred to His Father as the greater...yet...never denying His knowing of Him.

Many of us maintain a confession of Jesus Christ...some maintain "they once had one"...but no longer. That's not the issue.


But yes, we who maintain that confession have indeed "put all our (wow, again) _eggs_ in that basket, and we are not ashamed of the seeming "tight spot" in which it may cause us to appear. To, on the one hand, have some knowledge of God through Jesus Christ, but also being made quite aware such "knowledge"...if sought to advantage _over another_ is going to be answered by that same God in an unexpected humbling (as presumption always results...for pride always blinds one to "what is coming") Yet...we know...we are nevertheless bidden to speak even if we find our faces must later be dripping. We _do have a trust _our teacher is patient.
We already know he is kind.

There's not one who can honestly call himself a believer that has not put his faith there, his eggs there, his trust there...that there is something other than what all else would tell him he deserves.
Only Jesus promises mercy.
And Jesus is no liar.

He allowed something done to Himself...to show it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2017)

Israel said:


> Having had to wipe egg from my face on multiple occasions is not my preferred past time. But, it has also never been unfitting. It's perfect.
> 
> The thing is, I never really know when I am setting myself up for it, I rarely know (but do have as sincere a hope as I imagine I could have _in sincerity_) to learn to navigate in faith, which is good...and not in presumption...which isn't.
> 
> ...


Must be scrambled eggs


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2017)

Israel said:


> Having had to wipe egg from my face on multiple occasions is not my preferred past time. But, it has also never been unfitting. It's perfect.
> 
> The thing is, I never really know when I am setting myself up for it, I rarely know (but do have as sincere a hope as I imagine I could have _in sincerity_) to learn to navigate in faith, which is good...and not in presumption...which isn't.
> 
> ...



I see your struggle. And as a friend, I will tell you that the crutch you lean on is weaker than your own limbs.


----------



## Israel (Nov 18, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I see your struggle. And as a friend, I will tell you that the crutch you lean on is weaker than your own limbs.



But you see (as this can never be conveyed, anymore than I, or anyone can "prove" God) I have seen my own frailty.

Yes, we believers talk about (at times), and have no doubt manufactured ten thousands of sermons about Jacob wrestling with the angel of the Lord, and coming away crippled. I am pretty sure you have read of it, and probably yourself maybe even heard a few of those sermons.

"God crippled him", touched him under the thigh, that place of strength, one pastor may have told you.
Yes, on its face that is what happened. And deeper still, that is precisely what happened.

But that is not "when" it happened. That is only the "when" we see Jacob discovering it. Jacob the clever man, Jacob the lying man, Jacob the "deal making man"...the "me" in toto. Distant son of Adam, but from the get go, found "in Adam", nevertheless. Just as much Adam...as Adam, himself.

Always guided by a principle done in calculation he can never rightly see the end of, always moving by a previous collection of experience toward what he mistakenly believes will serve him well in whatever next step he assays for himself. "What's the worse that could happen?" 

And yet, he can never know...till he "goes". So go he does, _as he absolutely must_ emboldened by past victory, every "getting away with it". Every _getting away with it _has informed his soul "keep going, you've always been able to come up with something...to keep going". You still..._are_. Your being is intact.

In the story he finally faces  (yes, it requires some "reading in"...a code key, so to speak, to see) the utter untenability of his situation. His brother, whom he had cheated quite venally, was on his way with 400 men. He knew well what were his "earnings" for that...even though he still had a plan. 

But 400 men led by a man in furious rage (as Jacob _knew_, as much as he knew anything, and righteous rage, at that)...what could he do? Could it have ever entered his mind his brother was coming to greet him? After all Jacob had done against him? Was that in _Jacob's realm_ of possibility? Do you think? 

And now much more was at stake...Jacob's wives...and children, weak, exposed (a man might learn there's a place where his "heart" is found defenseless) and finding himself finally there, where now _all is at certain risk_ an all that extended far beyond his own self...he finally "faced" that reckoning.
The scripture says he was "alone".

I have no confidence of being able to say the "all" that went through Jacob, there. I could be presumptuous in even imagining I know anything of it. But I can tell you, will tell you, of what "I know"...in myself. 

I _know_ I have been in a place faced with my own failing. I _know,_ in that place of all the excuses that present themselves to a utility, all the reasons that present themselves, the schemes that come, the sleight of hand, the calculations of this against that, and the "what's the worse that could happen" ifs, but they all fail, and fall before the face of "but this is for_ everything_..." Everything. Every thing.

If you want to call it a game, I am not offended. I know, to the outsider, it must appear such, just a game, a mind game. But, if it is only a game, it is a game to which I willingly enlisted...at the very first moment I began to game with the all, that is Everything. That, I cannot deny.
I have "gamed" the system. But when the _system of all_ shows up...what then can be my plea?

"I have gamed you"? Ha! What defense...is that? That admission to what _already knows?_ Of what use is such a trade there? Admitting to the thing that condemns me. And of what use are excuses there? "I didn't mean to?"...knowing full well every bit of calculations and adjustments, compromises and corners cut...intentionally...are already laid out? Ha! Again. I have "no play". None.

There's nothing left but the inescapable truth of it all...in which all must be lost, is manifestly lost, now, to my own sight. Gone. Pffft. "I am the gamer". Reality has never lied to me, reality/truth has never been false to me...but I have sought to "play" with it. I have used "it"...reality/truth/God, and sought to bend it to my own will, by gaming it. I am...the liar. I have used what is true..."the Word", and fashioned "my own" words, deeds, expressions of self, to a cover. But now, that cover is torn away....and I am left, only liar. No hope. Just clear sight, and no unknowing of what is...the liar cannot stand in the truth. Terror. Yes. Fear beyond imagining. 

And the very certain knowing of a thing beyond my capacity to declare, but will..."If I seek to come up with further cover here, in this terror...some excuse, some overlay that might seek its reduction...there will be a "next time" of meeting, a next time of engagement...and the emboldening here I might grab for to escape the present grasp of terror...will be more lie...and if I cannot answer here for lies "already"...what will the terror be when I add to it? I am, undone. Check, and mate. To be honest, in that place, there is not even thought of "another move"...but I realize having "come through" there is something that wants me to wonder...could anything else have been done...or said? Liar, still.

I did not "become" a cripple, I am formed one. Eternity is in my heart "the all" of what is...but found in a vessel of such finitude, it appears a curse. I am pressed to an "eternal game" with the most finite of pieces. I cannot prevail. I cannot win. I cannot...anything. In the face of that. In the face of that, I am lost. I am point only...on a line. If the line is declared "infinitely long" in both directions...any "point" , even on it, becomes...infinitely small. Infinitely. Small. And that is merely dealing in two dimensions. What of three? Or even "more"...in the all?

Lost. Not even "nothing"...but always found, if found, infinitely smaller, even. Me...in the "all".

Yes, it appears...a curse. To be...but when thinking in that "being" to find where "own" being is lost. The place where "own being" has no further utterance, no means of escape, cannot even, "see" itself...there. Yes. It surely "appears" a curse.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

That through death, death might be put to death. The finitude and the game, exposed. Given over to a thing, finitude, not as curse, but to the finding...even through death, what is not finite. But only seen when game is admitted. Gamer...exposed. And no man can go there of himself, and no man can stand there, by himself. Cripple? Strength? Those words evaporate there to any man's understanding.

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

That word, vanity, is easily and often translated as futility/frustration. I don't yet know the perfection of my frustration, of my own futility...but some of you help me see it, and for that, I am grateful. For in that seeing in frustration, something else comes into view that cannot be...the will of God. Something appears where it cannot be in all my admissions of utter failure. And it is not mine. But found. Hope.  

I _need_ to be among those who believe "they cannot settle for a lie, no matter how pleasing". For I too, believed the same thing of myself...once. And saw the game.

"What's the worse that can happen..._you_ can handle the truth..."

Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light.

As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him.

A man may say "I want to know God if He is there" to his fellows. He calculates this is a knowing he _can handle_. That will be "of use" to himself.

O!, foolish man!

Run silently with what you have, and pray things are_ measured to you,_ of grace.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 18, 2017)

I apology for, what is probably, excessive redaction, but it’s too long.  The links are there.

My view is that our conversation is two-blocked; and because you once accused me of “just going away”, which implied a weakness of character inherent in believers, notwithstanding that I showed that I had not just gone away; I thought a brief recap, from my perspective, might forestall accusations, which I would then have to decide whether or not I would defend.

You “jumped-in” (not intended divisively) with an accusation of intellectual dishonest by someone — the previous  seven post, with one early exception, having been made by Walt and myself, I will assume that someone was me (I have no way of ascertaining that “you” is singular or plural).


bullethead said:


> There is a LOT of intellectual dishonesty flowing in here.



Then, because I stated that facts are sometimes superceded by newly derived facts, you insinuated that I was not a gentleman, (when you could have as easily of ask for “back-up”, keeping your bias in check).


bullethead said:


> ... only a handful of gentleman....
> Anytime that you want to join the group...




Your accusation of intellectual dishonesty, being followed by empirically derived statements  represented as true, and nonempirically derived statements, being represented as untrue; I concluded that you were attempting to show that only those things that are empirically derived are true, and that everything else is untrue, and therefore display dishonesty, which conclusion I represented in my post:


hummerpoo said:


> So only empiricism qualifies as honesty ... got it.




To which you responded, “No, not at all. I did not even remotely say that.”, followed by restating previous empirically derived statements, and additional empirically derived statements, interspersed with derisive commentary; but not addressing empiricism as it relates to truth or honesty.


bullethead said:


> No, not at all. I did not even remotely say that.




I then attempted to point out the contradiction.


hummerpoo said:


> Based on the "fact" that gravitational observations are nonempirical.




I don’t know the intended purpose of the additional empirical information.


bullethead said:


> And that it keeps large hunks of rocks from slamming into us.
> Causes behavioural changes.
> Climate changes..



Not foreseeing anything beneficial, and assuming that the other conversations taking place in this thread will not suffer by its absence, I propose that this conversation die with as much honor as it can muster.

Having competed this, I realized that I might have as easily said, “Are we done here?” but in the interest of thoroughness I will post it, with apology for its length, relative to the alternative.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I apology for, what is probably, excessive redaction, but it’s too long.  The links are there.
> 
> My view is that our conversation is two-blocked; and because you once accused me of “just going away”, which implied a weakness of character inherent in believers, notwithstanding that I showed that I had not just gone away; I thought a brief recap, from my perspective, might forestall accusations, which I would then have to decide whether or not I would defend.
> 
> ...



"Empirical evidence is an observed phenomenon that appears the same to all observers. In science, evidence is never "proven true," nor is any hypothesis or theory. Scientific information is only considered valid until further evidence is observed that contradicts the hypothesis, theory, or interpretation of previous evidence. Therefore, the concept of proof is not a part of science. It is a valid concept in mathematics and law, but not science in its strictest sense. This reliance on empirical evidence is one of several measures that maintain science as a self-correcting means of studying and learning."

My observations tell me the moon is there. You can observe the same evidence and you are telling me it is not there. 

"Empirical is defined in the oxford dictionary as something based on experience or observation rather than logic. For data to be considered empirical it does not need to be fact. It is often used interchangeably with first hand experience. Therein, one could say that empirical findings are extrapolated anecdotal data, as anecdotal is also defined as being based on personal experience rather than facts.

Theoretical evidence would explicitly oppose empirical evidence because it is based on calculation and cannot be opinionated. It is meant to be concise and eliminate ambiguity which empirical or anecdotal evidence can not."

The distance from Earth to the Moon can be calculated. Humans are able to calculate the power needed, the trajectory and the speed to send a rocket into space and hit the moon at the precise distance the calculations told them impact would occur. Therefore, it negates your opinion that the Moon is not there.


"Gentleman" was a term used to cover ALL men involved in here but I was merely referring to a handful of them that consistently back them(claims)up.




> Claims are made all the time in here but only a handful of gentleman consistently back them up.
> Anytime that you want to join the group all you have to do is step forward to back-up.


Meaning,  anytime that you want to join the group that consistently backs their claims up.

You purposely cut quotes short and purposely tried to change the meaning of what was actually said in order to fit your reply.
I don't think that I have to repost the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> "Empirical evidence is an observed phenomenon that appears the same to all observers. In science, evidence is never "proven true," nor is any hypothesis or theory. Scientific information is only considered valid until further evidence is observed that contradicts the hypothesis, theory, or interpretation of previous evidence. Therefore, the concept of proof is not a part of science. It is a valid concept in mathematics and law, but not science in its strictest sense. This reliance on empirical evidence is one of several measures that maintain science as a self-correcting means of studying and learning."
> 
> My observations tell me the moon is there. You can observe the same evidence and you are telling me it is not there.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with the quotes that you provided, although links would be nice.

O.K., we have established that you do not understand what I say, and I do not understand what you say.



> You purposely cut quotes short and purposely tried to change the meaning of what was actually said in order to fit your reply.
> I don't think that I have to repost the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty



An totally untrue and patently false statement.

Are we done here?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I have no problem with the quotes that you provided, although links would be nice.
> 
> O.K., we have established that you do not understand what I say, and I do not understand what you say.
> 
> ...



From your post #94, this is what YOU quoted me as saying:



> Originally Posted by bullethead
> ... only a handful of gentleman....
> Anytime that you want to join the group...



From my original post #75, which is what I actually said:


bullethead said:


> Claims are made all the time in here but only a handful of gentleman consistently back them up.
> Anytime that you want to join the group all you have to do is step forward to back-up.





> You purposely cut quotes short and purposely tried to change the meaning of what was actually said in order to fit your reply.
> I don't think that I have to repost the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty



I have counted the words and letters of what I actually said, and what you gave me credit as saying.
You are certainly done here:


hummerpoo said:


> An totally untrue and patently false statement.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> From your post #94, this is what YOU quoted me as saying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm really sorry that you can't understand how I misunderstood your "gentlemen" statement, which I readily admitted; or that you were unable to find, if you looked for, support for your misinterpretations of what I said.

I really thought that my leading statement:


hummerpoo said:


> I apology for, what is probably, excessive redaction, but it’s too long.  The links are there.


was sufficient to inform any interested and sincere reader that I intended that the entirety of the 6 posts that I quoted from would be necessary for understanding of what I was about to say.  I certainly misjudged at least one reader.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm really sorry that you can't understand how I misunderstood your "gentlemen" statement, which I readily admitted; or that you were unable to find, if you looked for, support for your misinterpretations of what I said.
> 
> I really thought that my leading statement:
> 
> was sufficient to inform any interested and sincere reader that I intended that the entirety of the 6 posts that I quoted from would be necessary for understanding of what I was about to say.  I certainly misjudged at least one reader.



So are you telling me that you apologised for what you were about to say, knowing it was wrong,  but continued on to say it in great detail anyway?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> There is a LOT of intellectual dishonesty flowing in here.
> 
> You can deny the moon exists but it's forces act on Earth and are observable.  You can see the moon. But deny it is there. You can see pieces of the moon in museums but pretend it is something else.
> You can pretend/think/believe to know a god yet refuse to admit out loud that you really don't know what if anything lies beyond life now. As long as you are truthful to yourself you do not have to announce it on a forum. You have to continue on with whatever makes you happy. It doesn't have to be the truth.


Here's my announcement.....I know God is out there because I can see the moon that he created.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Here's my announcement.....I know God is out there because I can see the moon that he created.



That is awesome. Really. Can I mess your hair, give you a nickel,and send you on your way now?
Or do you have a "look what I do" dance that you want to get out of your system too?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> That is awesome. Really. Can I mess your hair, give you a nickel,and send you on your way now?
> Or do you have a "look what I do" dance that you want to get out of your system too?



I don't care if you mess up my hair and give me a nickel. Don't really dance though.

 In all seriousness, not sure why you take things to the point that you feel the need to be superior and negative at others. I don't really care if others believe like I do or not, I'm not doing it for them. If I'm wrong, it simply affects me, what is it going to do for you? Is there a "look what I do" dance there that you can't wait to do?


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> So are you telling me that you apologised for what you were about to say, knowing it was wrong,  but continued on to say it in great detail anyway?



I'm telling you that I freely and openly informed readers that I felt that to include the complete text of 6 posts, in the context of a "recap", would be burdensome to those who were familiar with the posts, at the same time that I made sure that they understood that the intent was that the complete posts were the context of my forthcoming statements, and available for their review, should they desire; at the same time informing those not familiar with  the posts that the references to the posts were, "probably excessively redacted", and they would be burdened with the post-jumping necessary to understand what was contained in the post they were about to read.

>>edit<< FYI, my original thought was to delete the complete body of the background posts, but then realized leaving a little of the text would give a hint, and possible make it unnecessary to post-jump for some people in some cases; don't know, of coarse, if it helped anyone. >>edit<<

I must say that you have a real talent for putting the worst possible gloss on something you are attempting to besmirch.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I don't care if you mess up my hair and give me a nickel. Don't really dance though.
> 
> In all seriousness, not sure why you take things to the point that you feel the need to be superior and negative at others. I don't really care if others believe like I do or not, I'm not doing it for them. If I'm wrong, it simply affects me, what is it going to do for you? Is there a "look what I do" dance there that you can't wait to do?


Spotlite, my goodness man. C'mon.

"I know god is out there because I can see the moon that he created"

I mean honestly what IS the point of even stating that? "We" all know you believe in a god. "You" all know that we love to discuss why.

Lots of people in many religions feel the same way that you do. They credit the existence of their god because they can see the moon too.

Now that "my god exists because I can see..." is established to death. 
Do you do it just to shout it for all to hear or is there something else that you could add to possibly back up you claim in a way that separates it from the thousands of other religious that says the same thing about different gods?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm telling you that I freely and openly informed readers that I felt that to include the complete text of 6 posts, in the context of a "recap", would be burdensome to those who were familiar with the posts, at the same time that I made sure that they understood that the intent was that the complete posts were the context of my forthcoming statements, and available for their review, should they desire; at the same time informing those not familiar with  the posts that the references to the posts were, "probably excessively redacted", and they would be burdened with the post-jumping necessary to understand what was contained in the post they were about to read.
> 
> I must say that you have a real talent for putting the worst possible gloss on something you are attempting to besmirch.



I like to cut to the chase.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, my goodness man. C'mon.
> 
> "I know god is out there because I can see the moon that he created"
> 
> ...



That was just a general statement, really had no objective behind it from me because I don't feel that it's my place to prove God, only he can do that. 

But generally speaking, the Christian believes in creation, so when we see the moon, we believe we are seeing his work. Regardless if he done it using the Big Bang or another way, we still believe that he created it.

I understand the concept of proving and facts, but to ask a Christian to look over his faith is the same as telling him it's not real.

Honestly consider this, how many of those scientist that "proved" what they consider to be facts about how we all got here are Christian? I haven't researched all of their background, but most quick searches say they're not. My only point to that question is only to show that their research can absolutely have a possibility to be biased.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> That was just a general statement, really had no objective behind it from me because I don't feel that it's my place to prove God, only he can do that.
> 
> But generally speaking, the Christian believes in creation, so when we see the moon, we believe we are seeing his work. Regardless if he done it using the Big Bang or another way, we still believe that he created it.
> 
> ...


Scientists, regardless of beliefs or religious affiliation, go with what the available evidence at the time tells them what is more likely than not.

All tests do not point to a god,  let alone the christian god, and they purposely ignore it.
If their findings showed a flying spaghetti monster was the most likely answer based off of all the available evidence.....they would go with that.

Is it your position that the majority of the scientific comnunity is purposely not announcing that God and Jesus are nonexistent despite having mounds and mounds of evidence that says otherwise?

Like, astronomers look at the moon with a giant powerful telescope and see the Made by God sticker on it but continue on as if it isn't there?
What bias are you talking about?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Scientists, regardless of beliefs or religious affiliation, go with what the available evidence at the time tells them what is more likely than not.
> 
> All tests do not point to a god,  let alone the christian god, and they purposely ignore it.
> If their findings showed a flying spaghetti monster was the most likely answer based off of all the available evidence.....they would go with that.
> ...



A Christian is not going leave God out of the equation. Non believers will and that is what I meant by biased. Purposely not announcing that God is nonexistent is not where I was going. I find it hard to imagine a non believer even considering that God exist, let alone stating "hey we know how the moon works now, but we are not sure how it got here, think a God did it"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> A Christian is not going leave God out of the equation. Non believers will and that is what I meant by biased. Purposely not announcing that God is nonexistent is not where I was going. I find it hard to imagine a non believer even considering that God exist, let alone stating "hey we know how the moon works now, but we are not sure how it got here, think a God did it"



Spotlite, please be honest.
Are you convinced that most of what science discovers all points to your god but they just do not admit it? Do they somehow silence the scientists that are christian?

I will tell you this with 100% honesty. If your god or any god makes it clear to me that they exist, I will be first to not only admit it but share it in here.

What happens if you were visited by something other than what you consider to be Jesus or your god? Or another diety made itself known worldwide and let everyone know it exists....would you take it seriously? Would you share what happened even if you didnt believe it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> A Christian is not going leave God out of the equation. Non believers will and that is what I meant by biased. Purposely not announcing that God is nonexistent is not where I was going. I find it hard to imagine a non believer even considering that God exist, let alone stating "hey we know how the moon works now, but we are not sure how it got here, think a God did it"



Will a christian lie just to purposely include god even where it doesnt fit?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Spotlite, please be honest.
> Are you convinced that most of what science discovers all points to your god but they just do not admit it? Do they somehow silence the scientists that are christian?
> 
> I will tell you this with 100% honesty. If your god or any god makes it clear to me that they exist, I will be first to not only admit it but share it in here.
> ...


No I'm not convinced that they know or think that God exist and won't acknowledge it. I am convinced that they in fact do not believe that he exist, which is why I asked could it be biased. Their conclusions by default are not going to drive anything to give God credit anywhere. And yea, if something visited me, I would share it. I would take it seriously if I was convinced that it was real, and would believe that it exist, but I still would not turn my back on God.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Will a christian lie just to purposely include god even where it doesnt fit?



By nature the Christian will include God in every aspect of their life, good and bad, for his purpose in their life. 

That being said, some folk let their flesh take over and exaggerate events to make themselves look more in tune to being "on fire" for God. To me, exaggerating is just a bigger word for lying.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No I'm not convinced that they know or think that God exist and won't acknowledge it. I am convinced that they in fact do not believe that he exist, which is why I asked could it be biased. Their conclusions by default are not going to drive anything to give God credit anywhere. And yea, if something visited me, I would share it. I would take it seriously if I was convinced that it was real, and would believe that it exist, but I still would not turn my back on God.


It is not them but you who is biased.
Scientists do not care what the evidence is or where it points. They go with it whatever it is.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> By nature the Christian will include God in every aspect of their life, good and bad, for his purpose in their life.
> 
> That being said, some folk let their flesh take over and exaggerate events to make themselves look more in tune to being "on fire" for God. To me, exaggerating is just a bigger word for lying.



By nature you and others find a way to insert a god where none is or needed. They do it for themselves despite what the evidence says. The results are exaggerated.
It is why their results do not hold up in scientific theory.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It is not them but you who is biased.
> Scientists do not care what the evidence is or where it points. They go with it whatever it is.



I see the point and there's a good bit of truth to it as I would be biased with the inclusion of God. 

I just still feel that by default their work is based because it's not going to search for answers in something that it doesn't believe exist. Just my opinion only, and I'm aware that it can be poked full of holes.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> By nature you and others find a way to insert a god where none is or needed. They do it for themselves despite what the evidence says. The results are exaggerated.
> It is why their results do not hold up in scientific theory.



The only problem are the scientist that are Christian - have they found a mutual benefit between faith and science? 

And for the atheist that have turned Christian - what evidence didn't hold up for them?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> The only problem are the scientist that are Christian - have they found a mutual benefit between faith and science?
> 
> And for the atheist that have turned Christian - what evidence didn't hold up for them?



I dont know.
I'd venture to guess that question could be asked of a scientist of any religious affiliation.
You can't just look at one and make a statement that also holds up for the others.

I dont know
Atheists becoming Christians.
Christians becoming Atheists
Believers to Non
Non to believers


----------



## Mako22 (Nov 18, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Lol the Jews have always rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Nothing new.



Pretty much


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Woodsman69 said:


> Pretty much



Can you explain why they reject Jesus?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I dont know.
> I'd venture to guess that question could be asked of a scientist of any religious affiliation.
> You can't just look at one and make a statement that also holds up for the others.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Mako22 (Nov 18, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Can you explain why they reject Jesus?



Yeah they didn't believe, same reason all unbelievers reject Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2017)

Woodsman69 said:


> Yeah they didn't believe, same reason all unbelievers reject Jesus.



It is obvious that you have never taken the time to research the reasons why they didn't believe.
You act as if the entire world knows that the story of Jesus is true and they just refuse to believe.

The fellow Jews (remember Jesus was a jew) felt that he was nothing special. He certainly did not fulfill Jewish prophesy, in fact there were other Jews who actually fulfilled more prophesy than Jesus but since those guys did not fulfill All prophesy they didn't make the cut either.
They grew up with Yeshua. They lived among Yeshua. They heard him preach. They witnessed him in action. Yeshua didn't do anything to impress his fellow Jews. He was just another apocalyptic preacher, of which there were many along with preachers on every corner, that caused so much trouble that he got himself in trouble with the Jews. NOBODY wanted someone to fulfill prophesy MORE than the Jews and they certainly wouldn't kill the best candidate just because...
Jesus accomplishments came in the form of embellished stories by writers who never met him, knew him or witnessed him in person and they did it decades after he was dead.
Nobody would have known if he was the messiah better than Jews. And NOBODY would know better if he wasn't.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 18, 2017)

Actually unbelief is the root cause. 

For the Jews, to be the Messiah, one has to rebuild the 3rd Temple, gather all Jews back to the land of Israel, bring about world peace, and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel.

To not fulfill any of those would mean that the person is not the Messiah. The Jews viewed Jesus as not fulfilling these in his lifetime and no one has since, they're still awaiting the Messiah.

What they failed to see is that when Jesus said destroy the Temple he would rebuild it in 3 days, it was his resurrection.

 The Temple is where animals were sacrificed and worship according to the Law of Moses. The breaking of the veil is symbolic that Jesus blood was sufficient atonement, and that's why he said "it is finished" No more sacrifices and no more man made Temple. 

According to Christian belief, the Jews missed it, Jesus is that Temple.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Actually unbelief is the root cause.
> 
> For the Jews, to be the Messiah, one has to rebuild the 3rd Temple, gather all Jews back to the land of Israel, bring about world peace, and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel.
> 
> ...





> Actually unbelief is the root cause.


You are exactly right.
The Jews (of which Jesus was one) who came BEFORE Christianity had their beliefs/requirements.
Christianity came along and did not believe those already established beliefs/requirements were the correct ones.

It wasn't the Jews who didn't believe the Christians.
It was the Christians who didn't believe the Jews.
So yes, unbelief is the root cause.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> No I'm not convinced that they know or think that God exist and won't acknowledge it. I am convinced that they in fact do not believe that he exist, which is why I asked could it be biased. Their conclusions by default are not going to drive anything to give God credit anywhere. And yea, if something visited me, I would share it. I would take it seriously if I was convinced that it was real, and would believe that it exist, but I still would not turn my back on God.





> Their conclusions by default are not going to drive anything to give God credit anywhere.


God/gods can't be proven to exist therefore the scientist can't give him/them credit for anything.
There is no getting around that.
Not even the Christian scientists can get around that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It is obvious that you have never taken the time to research the reasons why they didn't believe.
> You act as if the entire world knows that the story of Jesus is true and they just refuse to believe.
> 
> The fellow Jews (remember Jesus was a jew) felt that he was nothing special. He certainly did not fulfill Jewish prophesy, in fact there were other Jews who actually fulfilled more prophesy than Jesus but since those guys did not fulfill All prophesy they didn't make the cut either.
> ...


Its kind of interesting -
All the historical/outside of the Bible evidence etc. that we as man can find/has found supports the Jewish view of Jesus -


> Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and, most likely, a preacher living during the Roman occupation of Israel in the 1st century C.E. The Romans executed him — and many other nationalistic and religious Jews — for speaking out against the Roman authorities and their abuses.


Not coincidently, the above is pretty much exactly what I believe about the existence of "Jesus".
Of course, Christianity took it from there and went with it....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Actually unbelief is the root cause.
> 
> For the Jews, to be the Messiah, one has to rebuild the 3rd Temple, gather all Jews back to the land of Israel, bring about world peace, and spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel.
> 
> ...


It wasn't the Jews or Jesus who changed the requirements, it was the Christians decades later in order to fit.
And you should take the time to research how many prophecies that must be fulfilled. Jesus didn't  just miss it by two or three.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of interesting -
> All the historical/outside of the Bible evidence etc. that we as man can find/has found supports the Jewish view of Jesus -
> 
> Not coincidently, the above is pretty much exactly what I believe about the existence of "Jesus".
> Of course, Christianity took it from there and went with it....


Yes.

I think many believers picture that 2000 years ago the region had never seen anything or anyone like Jesus. The reality is that Jesus was just like every other guy in modern times that stands on the side of traffic or on a sidewalk corner holding a "The End Is Near" sign or some other apocalyptic sign. The times were filled with those types. Some took it too far to be punished, others took it far enough to be executed.
And within Jewish history there have been many more "qualified" potential messiah candidates that were far more popular among the Jews and were also well liked among the Jewish authorities and well followed by the people but still had not been able to meet all the qualifications to be their messiah. They got credit for what they did, they had huge followings while alive ,not decades and hundreds of years after their deaths,  yet the qualifications must be met. Close enough doesn't count.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> It wasn't the Jews who didn't believe the Christians.
> It was the Christians who didn't believe the Jews.
> So yes, unbelief is the root cause.



I would agree to this, the Christian doesn't believe the Jew when they say that Jesus is not the Messiah.

 The difference is the Jews are still looking, the Christian is experiencing things in their life that Jesus spoke of and said would happen that others have no explanation for.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

bullethead said:


> It wasn't the Jews or Jesus who changed the requirements, it was the Christians decades later in order to fit.
> And you should take the time to research how many prophecies that must be fulfilled. Jesus didn't  just miss it by two or three.



I have read them.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree to this, the Christian doesn't believe the Jew when they say that Jesus is not the Messiah.
> 
> The difference is the Jews are still looking, the Christian is experiencing things in their life that Jesus spoke of and said would happen that others have no explanation for.



None of that stuff is unique as far as religions and believers in those religions are concerned.
Every single religion on the planet that is or ever was has followers who make the same claims.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I have read them.



Then purposely leaving them out is on you.

If you want to make the claim, the next step would be to post what was required, how it was fulfilled and continue on until you cover them all.

I get the feeling though that you are going to use your "I'm  not here to prove anything" card, as you constanlty say....but you have no problem making claim after claim. You just dont want to be held accountable to back them up.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Then purposely leaving them out is on you.
> 
> If you want to make the claim, the next step would be to post what was required, how it was fulfilled and continue on until you cover them all.
> 
> I get the feeling though that you are going to use your "I'm  not here to prove anything" card, as you constanlty say....but you have no problem making claim after claim. You just dont want to be held accountable to back them up.


I only state that I don't prove God.

List a couple of prophecies that are not fulfilled.

If I don't have an answer, I'm man enjoy say I don't know.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I only state that I don't prove God.
> 
> List a couple of prophecies that are not fulfilled.
> 
> If I don't have an answer, I'm man enjoy say I don't know.


Lets start with the lineage of Jesus.

Go...


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I would agree to this, the Christian doesn't believe the Jew when they say that Jesus is not the Messiah.
> 
> The difference is the Jews are still looking, the Christian is experiencing things in their life that Jesus spoke of and said would happen that others have no explanation for.





> I would agree to this, the Christian doesn't believe the Jew when they say that Jesus is not the Messiah.


And Jesus wasn't the Jew's Messiah because he did not pass the already established requirements to be the Jew's messiah.
So the Jew's didn't "miss" anything. He simply didn't pass their test.


> The difference is the Jews are still looking, the Christian is experiencing things in their life that Jesus spoke of and said would happen that others have no explanation for.


You mean Christianity says that Jesus spoke of these things.
And there are explanations. You just don't agree with them or aren't aware of them.
And of course the Jews are still looking. Nobody has passed the test. Why would they stop looking?

Do you get the point?
We've even got Christians who almost never post here stopping in to take a shot at Jews because Christians PURPOSELY came up with different requirements than the ones Jews already had.
And somehow that's the Jew's fault.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> We've even got Christians who almost never post here stopping in to take a shot at Jews because Christians PURPOSELY came up with different requirements than the ones Jews already had.
> And somehow that's the Jew's fault.



I could imagine that happens, and no it's not the Jews fault. Let me go on record to state that I am not taking any shots at my Jewish friends. I'm a firm believer that the Jews are Gods chosen people. I will state why I believe that they rejected Jesus, if that appears as taking a shot at them, it was misunderstood by the reader.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I could imagine that happens, and no it's not the Jews fault. Let me go on record to state that I am not taking any shots at my Jewish friends. I'm a firm believer that the Jews are Gods chosen people. I will state why I believe that they rejected Jesus, if that appears as taking a shot at them, it was misunderstood by the reader.


Nope you are making a good effort to be "neutral" even though you have Christian beliefs.
But the "overall" Christian belief is that Jews "got it wrong" and are just "Jesus deniers".
When in reality, Christians just came up with their own new requirements for being the messiah and just expected Jews to see it their new way.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Lets start with the lineage of Jesus.
> 
> Go...



Acts 3: 24-26


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Nope you are making a good effort to be "neutral" even though you have Christian beliefs.
> But the "overall" Christian belief is that Jews "got it wrong" and are just "Jesus deniers".
> When in reality, Christians just came up with their own new requirements for being the messiah and just expected Jews to see it their new way.



Ok gotcha. I misunderstood and thought that maybe my post were coming across that way.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> Acts 3: 24-26



You are going to have to step up here and post the verse, tell us what the verse says, and then back it up by using your apologists talent.


I'll cut to the chase though because scripture doesn't tell you that the Jews use the father's side to trace lineage. NOT the mother's. You would have to use Mary's lineage to try to make the connection.

Prophesy #1 cannot be fulfilled therefore the quest ends right there.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite this is a long read.
It is a thread on reddit between people discussing what we are talking about now.
There are pro and con.
Take the time to read it, please.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/2cw82n/concerning_messianic_prophecies_that_jesus_did/


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 19, 2017)

bullethead said:


> You are going to have to step up here and post the verse, tell us what the verse says, and then back it up by using your apologists talent.
> 
> 
> I'll cut to the chase though because scripture doesn't tell you that the Jews use the father's side to trace lineage. NOT the mother's. You would have to use Mary's lineage to try to make the connection.
> ...


I understand your reasoning.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2017)

Spotlite said:


> I understand your reasoning.



I stand corrected.
The Bible does say that the lineage comes from the father's side.
Numbers 1:18 & Jeremiah 33:17


----------



## Israel (Nov 20, 2017)

All moves by appointment.
It's a Rube Goldberg contraption if we are trapped in it. Point and counter point. Then counter counter point. 

"Only what can happen does happen."


I have no argument against that. But it must include then the "even of" 

Everything _is_ happening, and all at once.

This happens. Is, what _is_ happening.

Take time out of the Rube Goldberg contraption. Replace it with patience.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2017)

Israel said:


> All moves by appointment.
> It's a Rube Goldberg contraption if we are trapped in it. Point and counter point. Then counter counter point.
> 
> "Only what can happen does happen."
> ...


I have been patiently waiting for you to ditch the Rube Goldberg Machine style of writing.


----------



## Israel (Nov 20, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I have been patiently waiting for you to ditch the Rube Goldberg Machine style of writing.


That's wonderful!

But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2017)

Israel said:


> That's wonderful!
> 
> But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.



Sorry, I'm  not an Axle Rose fan, or James.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Its kind of interesting -
> All the historical/outside of the Bible evidence etc. that we as man can find/has found supports the Jewish view of Jesus -
> 
> Not coincidently, the above is pretty much exactly what I believe about the existence of "Jesus".
> Of course, Christianity took it from there and went with it....


This is my next topic to research:


> The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
> 
> Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
> 
> ...


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 21, 2017)

bullethead said:


> This is my next topic to research:


If even only partially historically accurate (and we know some of it is) it paints quite a picture......


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> If even only partially historically accurate (and we know some of it is) it paints quite a picture......



Yes. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2017)

The process for electing a Pope is another good one. They lock themsleves in a room until God tells them who to vote for.
Never a unanimous outcome!!!

Hmmmm..


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 21, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.


Anywhere even close to "somewhere in the middle" puts quite a monkey wrench in the Christian claims.
For example -


> Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.


Even if you were to allow for writer opinion or having an axe to grind or wanting to present this information in a way that is negative to Christianity, there's really only one or two things that need to be historically accurate in here to blow the lid off.
And we know the council of Nicaea did actually take place.


----------

