# Authority



## hummerpoo (Jan 16, 2019)

I have no idea why this popped up while I was looking for some info on the order of Plato's dialogues, but it did. Nor do I know why I listened, other than as a diversion (like watching Rocky and Bullwinkle).
Anyway, I thought someone might be interested if they are ever concerned with the quality of source material used for "authority" (peer review, credentials, institutional nepotism, etc.); either in developing, confirming, or refuting ideas.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 16, 2019)

Never hurts to check the source, then source's sources and then the sources' sources.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 16, 2019)

Just a big circle


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Just a big circle


As compared to, "feelings"?
Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> As compared to, "feelings"?
> Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
> They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.


And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".

By "feelings".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".
> 
> By "feelings".


The procedures refute the "feelings" and "feelings claim".
Archeology,  forensics, original text are not feelings.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

Bullet, isn't the point of the inserted podcast: that the methodologies which germinated 2500+ yrs. ago, and have been fed, watered, propagated, tested, tweaked, polished by thousands of investigators, are worthless in the face of feelings?

There being no reason, that I can think of, to believe that has changed, is why I was looking at Plato and others.  From what I have seen so far, and it is very early, the conclusion may well be that the development of various "schools of thought" (owing to feelings building upon similar feelings ad infinitum) may well be "same old thing"; which is, of course, my feeling.

Hey, maybe that explains the link popping up when I wasn't looking for it.  AI has developed far beyond our understanding; it already has the capacity for "revelation".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

Yes, to a point.
I know if I am told that an ancient tribe of small humans inhabited a cave 25,000 years ago. And in that cave they find the bones belonging to 4ft humans along with pottery, arrow heads and all the things that are evidence of those people being there....it trumps feelings.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China.  About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000  from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China.  Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)?  Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 17, 2019)

Rift could be a crack caused by plates moving. New evidence, new conclusion. 
There are pretty clear definitions of caves and rifts.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 17, 2019)

I just started watching this.  Peterson seems to be a deep and careful thinker for the most part.  I've followed him for the last couple of years since his "Bill C-16" days.  I heard about the "Grievance Studies Hoax" from Heterodox Academy https://heterodoxacademy.org/academic-grievance-studies/
to which my brother, who is professor, is a member.  I also knew of Lindsey and Boghosian from their academic paper spoof "The Conceptual Penis".

On knowledge and how we get it it seems to me that much of it is from direct observation of the natural world.  If revelation can't be confirmed by the natural world that it doesn't really count as knowledge.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".
> 
> By "feelings".



I disagree.  Measurements are not "feelings".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China.  About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000  from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China.  Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)?  Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?


It is evidence.
What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?
It's been 39 years since I have been in 6th grade. A LOT of what was the best information at that time has changed since then in many ways.
Are you more knowledgeable now than you were in 6th grade?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is evidence.
> What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?
> It's been 39 years since I have been in 6th grade. A LOT of what was the best information at that time has changed since then in many ways.
> Are you more knowledgeable now than you were in 6th grade?


What are you talking about?
Have I forgotten how to write?
It's the same evidence REPORTED two ways.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> What are you talking about?
> Have I forgotten how to write?
> It's the same evidence REPORTED two ways.


Sounded to me like there was more evidence in the 2nd version and they dated it 3000 years older based off of that evidence.

But had you bothered to check either source, you would know that they were both incorrect as to when man first used fire. Maybe the fire that was in the cave or rift was 10,000 years old or 13,000 years old but neither is anywhere near the age of how long ago man has used fire. Modern man has been using fire for at least 200,000 years. Neanderthals longer.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Sounded to me like there was more evidence in the 2nd version and they dated it 3000 years older based off of that evidence.
> 
> But had you bothered to check either source, you would know that they were both incorrect as to when man first used fire. Maybe the fire that was in the cave or rift was 10,000 years old or 13,000 years old but neither is anywhere near the age of how long ago man has used fire. Modern man has been using fire for at least 200,000 years. Neanderthals longer.


As you are well aware, we have not been, and are not now discussing the use of fire by mankind.

You have a good day.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> As you are well aware, we have not been, and are not now discussing the use of fire by mankind.
> 
> You have a good day.


Yeah...you use two incredibly bad sources as examples to make a point and then wonder why the information contained within those sources is wrong....and blame it on feelings..
Instead of admitting how awful your choice of examples are...you bow out when presented with new information that refutes your examples.
All I see are hurt feelings.

Now you don't want to talk about the example YOU chose to use because it opens a whole new can worms that will show man has been around a lot longer than many religious people will admit to.

https://www.ibtimes.com/when-did-ma...humans-used-fire-350000-years-ago-new-1758607
And ^^^ above is findings from a cave in Israel!!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

660griz said:


> Rift could be a crack caused by plates moving. New evidence, new conclusion.
> There are pretty clear definitions of caves and rifts.



Hypothesis: 3 can equal 0
Premise 1: Sentence 1 is irrelevant — 0 contribution
Premise 2: Sentence 2 is circumstantial — 0 contribution
Premise 3: Sentence  3 is uncontested — 0 contribution
_____________________________________________
Conclusion: The phenomena exhibited supports the hypothesis.


----------



## Israel (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Bullet, isn't the point of the inserted podcast: that the methodologies which germinated 2500+ yrs. ago, and have been fed, watered, propagated, tested, tweaked, polished by thousands of investigators, are worthless in the face of feelings?
> 
> There being no reason, that I can think of, to believe that has changed, is why I was looking at Plato and others.  From what I have seen so far, and it is very early, the conclusion may well be that the development of various "schools of thought" (owing to feelings building upon similar feelings ad infinitum) may well be "same old thing"; which is, of course, my feeling.
> 
> Hey, maybe that explains the link popping up when I wasn't looking for it.  AI has developed far beyond our understanding; it already has the capacity for "revelation".



"Before they call I shall answer"


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yeah...you use two incredibly bad sources as examples to make a point and then wonder why the information contained within those sources is wrong....and blame it on feelings..
> Instead of admitting how awful your choice of examples are...you bow out when presented with new information that refutes your examples.
> All I see are hurt feelings.
> 
> ...


What relevance does your information have  to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago?  None.  The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> What relevance does your information have  to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago?  None.  The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.


It feels relevant.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> What relevance does your information have  to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago?  None.  The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.


My information is telling you that what  you read 20 and 60 years ago was incorrect and neither should have been used as your example because some of the information is definitely wrong and possibly all the information is not accurate or known.

In essence you are asking me if the correct pronunciation of the Capital of Kentucky is pronounced "Looo-ee-ville" or "Loo-is-ville"?
When the correct answer is Frankfurt.
And you are mad at me because you used bad into from the start. 

Check your source, the source's source and on and on.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> It feels relevant.


He doesn't feel informed now. He is informed.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> As compared to, "feelings"?
> Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
> They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.


Below is what I mean by it’s just a big circle. It keeps changing based on new info. If anything changes based on new evidence, was its’ previous status really ever “for sure”. 



hummerpoo said:


> When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China.  About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000  from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China.  Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)?  Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Check your source, the source's source and on and on.


This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?


The wrong sources certainly are.
Fortunately the ones that can be checked and confirmed are superb.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?


Have I mentioned any of my sources?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Have I mentioned any of my sources?


Only that you don't have any reliable sources. This is why you must use sources to check sources... ad infinitum.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> He doesn't feel informed now. He is informed.


In attempting to understand my failure to communicate my thoughts concerning the cave/rift, it might be helpful if you would tell me what it is of which you feel I have been informed.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> Only that you don't have any reliable sources. This is why you must use sources to check sources... ad infinitum.


Not at all.
You seem to interpret it that way, possibly because you take the word of the first source and go with it. It is shown time after time that is unrelaible. 
Most times checking sources only goes back 2 or 3. Thats all the information available and needed. Researchers/authors/scientists will often list their sources so others can check.
Are you making the case that the ability to confirm reliable sources and the accuracy of each is an improper way to go about checking facts?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> In attempting to understand my failure to communicate my thoughts concerning the cave/rift, it might be helpful if you would tell me what it is of which you feel I have been informed.


I get what you are saying about the Cave/rift..Rift/cave. But at that point the articles are already garbage.
What I am saying is that if the person that wrote that is also trying to pass off to you that Man first used fire 10,000 years ago and the other person is saying No, no, no, man First used fire 13,000 years ago (To me Alarms went off right away that they do not know what they are talking about) that both of them are wrong and whatever they write after those two incredibly erroneous mistakes is also going to be incorrect. Bottom line is they are sources that cannot be trusted.

Now i get the fact that you are not going go to go to that particular cave yourself and try to see whether it is a cave or a rift or whether or not you find a ledge or check how far things are down in the dirt. But you CAN check to see if what was written 60 and 20 years ago goes along with the research, archeology, and results of others.
Right off the bat both of your sources state numbers of when man FIRST used fire. They missed the years by almost 2 million. 
Hopefully,  (teehee, giggle giggle, Giggity-Giggity or whatever other goofy thing you want to throw in there) is that you have been informed to check your information before using it as examples.

Or another very plausible explanation is that what you read 60 and 20 years ago is not as you remember it now.
It is possible that the articles/stories talked about when man first used in that particular Cave/Rift. And I do not know what other points of information that you may or may not be leaving out to clear up the Cave/Rift discrepancy....which based off of the information you have provided...cleared that up on its own...
And that if you are really concerned enough about finding out the answers between the two, you absolutely could search farther into it to clear up any questions you might have about a cave or a rift....or you can wait another 20 years in the hopes you catch another article about it.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China.


 I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago. 





> About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000  from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China.


 Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift. 





> Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)?


 It was a rift. According to what you wrote.  





> Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?


 In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

660griz said:


> I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago.  Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift.  It was a rift. According to what you wrote.   In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
> Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
> Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.


I am just guessing but it seems that regarding a 6th grade textbook,  the intent was not about whether it was a cave or a rift, but a vague outline about how scientists go about their procedures.
About the only thing I can remember from the 6th grade was I wore a M*A*S*H 4077th shirt to school one day and unbeknownst to me the last epside aired the night before. Two teachers made comments to me about the shirt and I had no idea why...nor did i particularly care.
Actually, i didnt even remember that correctly....The Colonel Henry Blake was killed when his chopper was shot down after getting his orders to go home....I happened to wear the shirt the next day....Adults knew what happened, i had ZERO clue.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I am just guessing but it seems that regarding a 6th grade textbook,  the intent was not about whether it was a cave or a rift, but a vague outline about how scientists go about their procedures.
> About the only thing I can remember from the 6th grade was I wore a M*A*S*H 4077th shirt to school one day and unbeknownst to me the last epside aired the night before. Two teachers made comments to me about the shirt and I had no idea why...nor did i particularly care.


All I remember is this guy that drove to school. Had a beard. 6th grade was the hardest 5 years of his life. 
Personally, cave,rift,10000 years, 13000 years, whatever. The lesson I take from that is man was making fire a long time ago. Before Jesus did miracles there were miracles. 
I wonder if they worshipped the first person to make fire? If I lived in a cave in Michigan, I probably would. You da man!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I get what you are saying about the Cave/rift..Rift/cave. But at that point the articles are already garbage.
> What I am saying is that if the person that wrote that is also trying to pass off to you that Man first used fire 10,000 years ago and the other person is saying No, no, no, man First used fire 13,000 years ago (To me Alarms went off right away that they do not know what they are talking about) that both of them are wrong and whatever they write after those two incredibly erroneous mistakes is also going to be incorrect. Bottom line is they are sources that cannot be trusted.
> 
> Now i get the fact that you are not going go to go to that particular cave yourself and try to see whether it is a cave or a rift or whether or not you find a ledge or check how far things are down in the dirt. But you CAN check to see if what was written 60 and 20 years ago goes along with the research, archeology, and results of others.
> ...


Thak you, that is very helpful; and from it I take it that my primary error was in approaching the discussion that was to casual/informal; foolishly not realizing the degree to which informality would be used as logical grapeshot.  Of course, avoiding that problem is a formula for sentences becoming essays, and paragraphs becoming books.  I don't think I will attempt to solve the problem in this venue.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

660griz said:


> I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago.  Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift.  It was a rift. According to what you wrote.   In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
> Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
> Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.


I see that comprehension is the likely problem.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Thak you, that is very helpful; and from it I take it that my primary error was in approaching the discussion that was to casual/informal; foolishly not realizing the degree to which informality would be used as logical grapeshot.  Of course, avoiding that problem is a formula for sentences becoming essays, and paragraphs becoming books.  I don't think I will attempt to solve the problem in this venue.


Is this your first visit here in the AAA?

Your primary error was to use a bad example. And that even being a bad example actually addresses your questions about a cave or a rift. Therefore, no reason to use it in the first place.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” – Edgar Allen Poe


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Is this your first visit here in the AAA?
> 
> Your primary error was to use a bad example. And that even being a bad example actually addresses your questions about a cave or a rift. Therefore, no reason to use it in the first place.
> 
> “Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” – Edgar Allen Poe


Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".

If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".
> 
> If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.


Wait one, that isn't right is it?  Yes, the following of my feelings did lead to a negative result (failure to communicate properly) but it was the feeling that determined the action, thus lending evidence that feelings dominate.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".
> 
> If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.


Hostility?
Hardly,  I am sorry if you take/took anything as being hostile. It seems we have now moved onto interpretation of evidence issues.

You were talking accuracy of information from feelings.
I was talking accuracy of information from sources in order to not rely on feelings.
I pointed out that if a person bothers to check the source, they may find out that the information is verifiable or it is incorrect.
In the case of your examples above with the information you gave, incorrect has turned out to be the case.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> I see that comprehension is the likely problem.


Obviously. My post was so you could clear it up. But, you would rather be an...unpleasant person.

If multiple folks have a comprehension issue with regards to your writings...maybe it is you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Wait one, that isn't right is it?  Yes, the following of my feelings did lead to a negative result (failure to communicate properly) but it was the feeling that determined the action, thus lending evidence that feelings dominate.


It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.


Oh yes, both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading.

The question of which dominates human behavior is one that falls under "same old thing" (rational vs empirical/realism vs idealism/ etc., etc., etc.)


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Oh yes, both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading.
> 
> The question of which dominates human behavior is one that falls under "same old thing" (rational vs empirical/realism vs idealism/ etc., etc., etc.)


Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Are you making the case that the ability to confirm reliable sources and the accuracy of each is an improper way to go about checking facts?


No. I have you doing a superb job of that.


----------



## Brother David (Jan 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It also shows that feelings cannot be trusted and why it is so important to research and verify.



This is why we struggle . Instead of acceptance of known information we continue to massage the data until we can get it too look favorable to ( our point of view ) . 

Facts are Facts .
Hypothesis are Hypothesis .

This is why I choose to read instead of opine . Facts are irrelevant and the arguments are to prove THEMSELVES  right. There's no room for accept knowledge , only the quest for self-righteousness .


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there.


If you are correct, as I believe you are, and the "conversation" applies to most of the activity on this subforum, as I believe it does, then it justifies the intent of nearly all of my activity on the AAA, which has been to show that none of the contentious issues discussed, although certainly valuable for all to consider, have any real prospect of being contributed to in this venue.  I have also dared to hope , if that point [cloud could] be clearly shown, it would bring many to realize that there is no justification for the hostility and dogmatism which prevails.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> No. I have you doing a superb job of that.


The evidence does not support your claim


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> If you are correct, as I believe you are, and the "conversation" applies to most of the activity on this subforum, as I believe it does, then it justifies the intent of nearly all of my activity on the AAA, which has been to show that none of the contentious issues discussed, although certainly valuable for all to consider, have any real prospect of being contributed to in this venue.  I have also dared to hope , if that point cloud be clearly shown, it would bring many to realize that there is no justification for the hostility and dogmatism which prevails.


All I meant was, that regarding this specific conversation dealing with feelings vs facts that when you said " both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading." (Which was what I was saying all along because my stance was that checking and rechecking sources for factual information that corroborates itself is much more reliable) Is why I replied with " Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there".
You recognized and summed up the point I made throughout.

Some other in here is still a day behind and continues on using feelings instead of facts, all the while acting as an example of my point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2019)

Brother David said:


> This is why we struggle . Instead of acceptance of known information we continue to massage the data until we can get it too look favorable to ( our point of view ) .


Are you aware that you are using the term "WE" above to include the people who use feelings instead of facts? And it sounds like you have included yourself in that group.



Brother David said:


> Facts are Facts .


Yes they are.


Brother David said:


> Hypothesis are Hypothesis .


By you making that statement I am getting the feeling that you think all Hypothesis are the same. Like just a "guess". To which I reply  They are not.
For Example:
The Research Hypothesis is a paring down of the problem into something testable and falsifiable. 
Scientists must generate a realistic and testable hypothesis around which they can build the experiment.
Their Hypothesis sets them up to test it and verify it in the next steps.



Brother David said:


> This is why I choose to read instead of opine . Facts are irrelevant and the arguments are to prove THEMSELVES  right. There's no room for accept knowledge , only the quest for self-righteousness .


Facts remove all doubt. The arguments that contain facts give knowledge to those who argue with feelings.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 19, 2019)

bullethead said:


> All I meant was, that regarding this specific conversation dealing with feelings vs facts that when you said " both feelings and senses/experience can be misleading." (Which was what I was saying all along because my stance was that checking and rechecking sources for factual information that corroborates itself is much more reliable) Is why I replied with " Cliff notes of the entire conversation right there".
> You recognized and summed up the point I made throughout.
> 
> Some other in here is still a day behind and continues on using feelings instead of facts, all the while acting as an example of my point.


Do you detect any dogmatism in your post?

In anticipation of your response, I am led to think that the fellow said to have spent the latter portion of his life watching Ice Station Zebra over and over and over again, and was adjudged insane, was actually uniquely sane.  Now I'm going back to watching The Hunt for Red October.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2019)

hummerpoo said:


> Do you detect any dogmatism in your post?
> 
> In anticipation of your response, I am led to think that the fellow said to have spent the latter portion of his life watching Ice Station Zebra over and over and over again, and was adjudged insane, was actually uniquely sane.  Now I'm going back to watching The Hunt for Red October.


I am not expressing an opinion or a belief as fact(that is the definition of dogmatism)....I am expressing Fact.


Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please.


----------



## Israel (Jan 19, 2019)




----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2019)

bullethead said:


> It is evidence.
> What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?



Laying the blame for the somewhat dubious ‘global warming’ at mans feet comes to mind


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Laying the blame for the somewhat dubious ‘global warming’ at mans feet comes to mind


I agree. And why nobody should take the word for it or anything blindly through feelings.
Research will show what a tool Al Gore is and how the facts do not add up to what he/they are saying....unless nobody bothers to check and go with what sounds and feels good.
Your example of global warming is compelling, but it is not the best available evidence. Just an example of why sources need to scrutinized and confirmed or weeded out.


----------



## Brother David (Jan 21, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I agree. And why nobody should take the word for it or anything blindly through feelings.
> Research will show what a tool Al Gore is and how the facts do not add up to what he/they are saying....unless nobody bothers to check and go with what sounds and feels good.
> Your example of global warming is compelling, but it is not the best available evidence. Just an example of why sources need to scrutinized and confirmed or weeded out.


Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
> 1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
> 2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
> 3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
> Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .


I agree to a point.
Data and surveys, polls, results can and are manipulated to say really whatever that is wanted said.

But evidence and facts trump the hype, claims, assertions and the rest.


For example:
Archeological evidence vs Claims.
The evidence will be there or it won't. 
It will confirm or deny.
Hard to pull a 6ft leg bone out of the ground and say it is from a chipmonk.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 21, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
> 1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
> 2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
> 3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
> Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .


See now that's ^ a good post Bro.
Next time we ask a question and you reach for the Bible/Christianity to answer it, Im wondering if you will apply the same criteria?
Does the Bible/Christianity have an agenda? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a direct link to funding? Obviously yes.
Does the Bible/Christianity have a balanced approach? Obviously no.

Fair is fair right?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Besides Global Warming there are several factors we must consider when evaluating any kind of Data . Some of which are ;
> 1) Does the research have a Agenda ( not a goal ) ?
> 2) Do the results have a direct link to funding ?
> 3) Does the research have a balanced approach ?
> Often the desired results of research are tainted by biases which the researchers have direct control of . Their goal isn't to produce a concrete answer rather to prove their opinions . Agenda based research should be looked at for exactly what it is , Agenda pushing , not answers .



It’s very unfortunate that perhaps  the two foremost institutions in which society SHOULD expect to exemplify impeccable integrity, the Church and the scientific community, have both lost all credibility.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> See now that's ^ a good post Bro.
> Next time we ask a question and you reach for the Bible/Christianity to answer it, Im wondering if you will apply the same criteria?
> Does the Bible/Christianity have an agenda? Obviously yes.
> Does the Bible/Christianity have a direct link to funding? Obviously yes.
> ...



It’s a fair assessment, but it is incorrect to assert the scientific community doesn’t suffer from the same.  I’ve been in medicine 30 years and in all honesty the best I can sum up all the changes in practice is to say that the research results follows the $$$$s.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It’s very unfortunate that perhaps  the two foremost institutions in which society SHOULD expect to exemplify impeccable integrity, the Church and the scientific community, have both lost all credibility.


Again, I agree to a point.
Mainly because while many on either side work hard to do it right and be accurate, the ones with the most influence/agenda gets the majority of the spotlight and air time.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It’s a fair assessment, but it is incorrect to assert the scientific community doesn’t suffer from the same.  I’ve been in medicine 30 years and in all honesty the best I can sum up all the changes in practice is to say that the research results follows the $$$$s.


I love how medicine manufacturers spend millions on tv commercials that instruct us the patients, to  TELL" our doctors about this or that medicine.
It's not OTC meds that we can go buy, we are supposed to tell men and women who have done years and years of schooling, years of practice and experience about what we think they should prescribe....
Priceless
And its ALL about the $$$


----------



## Brother David (Jan 21, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> See now that's ^ a good post Bro.
> Next time we ask a question and you reach for the Bible/Christianity to answer it, Im wondering if you will apply the same criteria?
> Does the Bible/Christianity have an agenda? Obviously yes.
> Does the Bible/Christianity have a direct link to funding? Obviously yes.
> ...


I always try , to the best of my ability , to quote established Beliefs when quoting Biblical answers . 
I am not much on the New Age agenda . That's what got Hymenaeus and Alexander in trouble , trying to mix Bible and Worldly .
I do agree though , everyone who tries to alter Beliefs should really self examine and ask why .


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The procedures refute the "feelings" and "feelings claim".
> Archeology,  forensics, original text are not feelings.


"This amazing new site adds to our knowledge of these unique monuments and of the prehistoric archeology of the area. It is rare for these sites to go unidentified for so long, especially in such a good condition," Neil Ackerman, the council's historic environment record assistant, said in its statement.

But excitement turned to embarrassment in January, when the former owner of the farm where the circle was found approached the council to let it know he had built the monument himself in the 1990s.
Responding to the news, the council said research into the site had been "cut short."

Revelation has a way of doing that.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/scottish-stone-circle-90s-replica-gbr-intl-scli/index.html


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> "This amazing new site adds to our knowledge of these unique monuments and of the prehistoric archeology of the area. It is rare for these sites to go unidentified for so long, especially in such a good condition," Neil Ackerman, the council's historic environment record assistant, said in its statement.
> 
> But excitement turned to embarrassment in January, when the former owner of the farm where the circle was found approached the council to let it know he had built the monument himself in the 1990s.
> Responding to the news, the council said research into the site had been "cut short."
> ...



Oh well hey, I mean wow, that example has brought the stone cold stunner to all the legit archeology.  You have single handedly toppled the faux science of archaeology with that piece. NOBODY would have ever figured that out.
I bet if you took another 3 or 4 days you might be able to come with more examples to officially topple the entire practice.

I am giddy waiting for Revelationology and the lesser known but still 100% accurate Feelingsology museums to spring up world wide.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

All you arrowhead finding guys....put em back, they are Muzzy's.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> "This amazing new site adds to our knowledge of these unique monuments and of the prehistoric archeology of the area. It is rare for these sites to go unidentified for so long, especially in such a good condition," Neil Ackerman, the council's historic environment record assistant, said in its statement.
> 
> But excitement turned to embarrassment in January, when the former owner of the farm where the circle was found approached the council to let it know he had built the monument himself in the 1990s.
> Responding to the news, the council said research into the site had been "cut short."
> ...



Now that’s funny.  People have thought themselves wiser down through the ages only to exposed as fools.  They thought it in Jesus’s day and they do it now.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 22, 2019)

Brother David said:


> I always try , to the best of my ability , to quote established Beliefs when quoting Biblical answers .
> I am not much on the New Age agenda . That's what got Hymenaeus and Alexander in trouble , trying to mix Bible and Worldly .
> I do agree though , everyone who tries to alter Beliefs should really self examine and ask why .


I'll be honest Bro....
I dont have a clue who's post you are responding to. Although I see you quoted my post, your response has zip, zero, nada to do with the point I made.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2019)

Revelation is beyond reproach.  No one can test it and there's no way to refute it. Yet no one would try a new vaccine if the only evidence of its safety or effectiveness was "revelation".  Revelation is the weakest form of proof but for those who experience it, they find it to be the most powerful.  To me that says something about the mind.  I think it's a glitch from a bygone era that we should try to recognize, understand, and correct for.


----------



## Israel (Jan 22, 2019)




----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Revelation is the weakest form of proof



I guess that would depend on who is doing the revealing.  Christ fulfilled over 400 prophecies, some written thousands of years before his birth, prophecies which were revelations at the time they were given.  So, Yeah, depending on the revealer, prophecy CAN be beyond reproach.  Time bears out the wisdom and integrity of the revealer, that’s one big reason people can trust the Biblical revelations....past performance.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> "This amazing new site adds to our knowledge of these unique monuments and of the prehistoric archeology of the area. It is rare for these sites to go unidentified for so long, especially in such a good condition," Neil Ackerman, the council's historic environment record assistant, said in its statement.
> 
> But excitement turned to embarrassment in January, when the former owner of the farm where the circle was found approached the council to let it know he had built the monument himself in the 1990s.
> Responding to the news, the council said research into the site had been "cut short."
> ...






> ”These monuments are notoriously difficult to date,"



Yeah, but, but, but.....Science....

LOL.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, but, but, but.....Science....
> 
> LOL.


Obviously the "scientist" was the top of his class.

400 prophecies fulfilled.
Please tell us about them(it doesn't matter that we have discussed them and debunked most of them).
And if he actually fulfilled all those things and others before him and after him fulfilled even more but did not qualify to be messiah....why does he?
You are not using the law of the OT prophecy as your source.
According to the story in the NT about Jesus life, lineage and death,..disqualifies him from being the Messiah.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

https://www.livescience.com/64555-ancient-stone-circle-is-modern-replica.html



> Replica circle
> 
> The stone circle near Alford initially baffled archaeologists, because it wasn't noted on any land records or archaeological reports about that area.
> One of the former farm owners had contacted the archaeologists studying the Alford stone circle, informing them that he had built it out of nearby rocks sometime in the 1990s, Ackerman told Live Science on Monday.
> ...



So the bottom line is that they went with feelings and hearsay. They overlooked land records and archeology records of the area.
The man did a very good job of positioning the rocks to be accurate and resemble other ones in the area.
Because nobody can look at a rock and tell how long it is has been there and the fact that the clues were there as to the size of the circle being different and locals thought they remembered seeing rocks in the distance up there, they let feelings override procedure and fact.

A simple search of satellite pics would have cleared it up.

It pays to check sources.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I guess that would depend on who is doing the revealing.  Christ fulfilled over 400 prophecies, some written thousands of years before his birth, prophecies which were revelations at the time they were given.  So, Yeah, depending on the revealer, prophecy CAN be beyond reproach.  Time bears out the wisdom and integrity of the revealer, that’s one big reason people can trust the Biblical revelations....past performance.



http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2007/09/100-challenge.html?m=1

"As a pastor, I often made reference in my sermons to the “astounding prophecies of the Bible,” which I believed proved the deity of Christ and the divine inspiration of Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt. It was my sincere conviction that if an unbeliever examined, for example, the Messianic prophecies embedded in the Old Testament with an open mind, he would walk away a convert to Christ. How many prophecies are we talking about here? Well, that depends on who you ask. Jews for Jesus point to several dozen Messianic prophecies, while Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017” (that's 10 to the power of 17). "

Read the rest in the link.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I guess that would depend on who is doing the revealing.  Christ fulfilled over 400 prophecies, some written thousands of years before his birth, prophecies which were revelations at the time they were given.  So, Yeah, depending on the revealer, prophecy CAN be beyond reproach.  Time bears out the wisdom and integrity of the revealer, that’s one big reason people can trust the Biblical revelations....past performance.



OK.  Confirmed prophecy might be evidence of revelation.  What are your standards for confirmed prophecy?  Does Nostradamus qualify?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 22, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> OK.  Confirmed prophecy might be evidence of revelation.  What are your standards for confirmed prophecy?  Does Nostradamus qualify?



Dunno,  but 400 prophecies spread out over 2000 years fulfilled about 1 person.  Make that your standard.  Nothing else comes close.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 22, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Dunno,  but 400 prophecies spread out over 2000 years fulfilled about 1 person.  Make that your standard.  Nothing else comes close.




Do you simply believe that that's true or have you done research to confirm it?  Which examples do you find most compelling?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Dunno,  but 400 prophecies spread out over 2000 years fulfilled about 1 person.  Make that your standard.  Nothing else comes close.


You sound like the Scottish guy above.
You saw what happens when you take others words for it.

You keep using these 400 numbers without a list of what they are..but what stands out about Jesus being the Messiah is what he didn't accomplish which even just one unfulfilled disqualifies him.

Read the link I provided above


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/mt_ref

Here is a list taken off of Christian websites that list them as prophesies. 
These people have taken them and refuted them one by one.
http://www.truth2u.org/365-messianic-prophecies-missing-in-action/


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I bet if you took another 3 or 4 days you might be able to come with more examples to officially topple the entire practice.


I didn't spend a second coming up with it. The article came to me, but thanks for expressing your feelings.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> I didn't spend a second coming up with it. The article came to me, but thanks for expressing your feelings.


No problem, thank you for sharing the article with us. It provided the perfect situations, mistakes, and reasons for why checking and rechecking sources works so well, and going with feelings does not.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 22, 2019)

bullethead said:


> http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/mt_ref
> 
> Here is a list taken off of Christian websites that list them as prophesies.
> These people have taken them and refuted them one by one.
> http://www.truth2u.org/365-messianic-prophecies-missing-in-action/



Hindsight is 20/20.......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Hindsight is 20/20.......


Yes, it is a good thing to be able to look back and see what did or did not happen and explain why.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> No problem, thank you for sharing the article with us. It provided the perfect situations, mistakes, and reasons for why checking and rechecking sources works so well, and going with feelings does not.


And checking and rechecking sources works so well, they would still be doing it, had truth not appeared.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> And checking and rechecking sources works so well, they would still be doing it, had truth not appeared.


Incorrect. The article clearly states that they never bothered to check sources. All they had to do was was look at prior land and archeological maps and they would have seen that the stones were not there 20 years prior. Previous satellite pics would have confirmed no circle existed on that spot. Instead somebody got excited over some rocks and made up their own stories and went with their feelings instead of using the scientific process. Feelings over Fact  failed again. They bypassed the method and this is what happens. A more perfect example could not have found you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> And checking and rechecking sources works so well, they would still be doing it, had truth not appeared.


The article you linked to was very vague. It did not tell what processes they took or did not take in order to verify the formation. I researched it more. I found another article (a few more actually) that included more details on how and why the local ancient site hunters failed to check available sources, and how that contributed to their error. They did not follow procedure and instead went with their feelings. And in fact, did not do what you elude to above. They didn't bother to check a source let alone multiple sources. They let their feelings fuel their imaginations instead of using evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I love how medicine manufacturers spend millions on tv commercials that instruct us the patients, to  TELL" our doctors about this or that medicine.
> It's not OTC meds that we can go buy, we are supposed to tell men and women who have done years and years of schooling, years of practice and experience about what we think they should prescribe....
> Priceless
> And its ALL about the $$$



That's just the front end and only fraction of the marketing.  On the back end most don't see what they spend enticing hospitals and doctors.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You sound like the Scottish guy above.
> You saw what happens when you take others words for it.
> 
> You keep using these 400 numbers without a list of what they are..but what stands out about Jesus being the Messiah is what he didn't accomplish which even just one unfulfilled disqualifies him.
> ...



I read the first link.  The author himself makes it clear he took a scripture out of context as a prophecy.  I fail to see how one verse which is clearly NOT a prophetic verse, again by the author's own admission, can be labeled" unfulfilled" and thus a dis-qualifier.  However, you can color me unsurprised by your interpretation.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I read the first link.  The author himself makes it clear he took a scripture out of context as a prophecy.  I fail to see how one verse which is clearly NOT a prophetic verse, again by the author's own admission, can be labeled" unfulfilled" and thus a dis-qualifier.  However, you can color me unsurprised by your interpretation.


Well it's not my interpretation.  I have now given multiple sources that break it down better than I can explain it, and there are more out there.

Bottom line is that Jesus was fulfill OT prophecy.  He flat out did not. And they point that out. The fact that he died disqualified him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Well it's not my interpretation.  I have now given multiple sources that break it down better than I can explain it, and there are more out there.
> 
> Bottom line is that Jesus was fulfill OT prophecy.  He flat out did not. And they point that out. The fact that he died disqualified him.



 Right.  Anyone with even a adolescent understanding of the Gospel would tell you that his atoning death not only fulfilled prophecy but along with the resurrection, is the hinge on which all of Christianity hangs.  This being the case I can certainly understand why Anti-Christians would want to debunk it, but to state "the fact that he died disqualified him" is beyond silly.  Again, color me unsurprised, but quiet amused.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Right.  Anyone with even a adolescent understanding of the Gospel would tell you that his atoning death not only fulfilled prophecy but along with the resurrection, is the hinge on which all of Christianity hangs.  This being the case I can certainly understand why Anti-Christians would want to debunk it, but to state "the fact that he died disqualified him" is beyond silly.  Again, color me unsurprised, but quiet amused.


The NT is the problem and why adolescents fall for it.
It was written in order to work in Jesus as messiah. Change the rules if you will because Jesus did not fulfill the OT rules. The OT rules are very simple. There is a reason why the Jews that lived among Jesus who was a Jew didn't buy it and it's the same reasons they do not buy it now. He did not fulfill the prophesy. Period.

I have posted the requirements and why Jesus did not fulfill them. I really do not care that you choose to overlook them. His fulfillments are not still coming or will happen.  They did not happen during his lifetime and that disqualifies him.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Yes, it is a good thing to be able to look back and see what did or did not happen and explain why.


Very true. And another way of considering it is that many may find themselves doing that a little too late.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Right.  Anyone with even a adolescent understanding of the Gospel would tell you that his atoning death not only fulfilled prophecy but along with the resurrection, is the hinge on which all of Christianity hangs.  This being the case I can certainly understand why Anti-Christians would want to debunk it, but to state "the fact that he died disqualified him" is beyond silly.  Again, color me unsurprised, but quiet amused.


Jesus fulfilling prophecy is the hinge that Christianity hangs on.
Jesus not fulfilling prophecy disqualified him with the Jews.
Sounds like your beef is with the Jews not A/As.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Right.  Anyone with even a adolescent understanding of the Gospel would tell you that his atoning death not only fulfilled prophecy but along with the resurrection, is the hinge on which all of Christianity hangs.  This being the case I can certainly understand why Anti-Christians would want to debunk it, but to state "the fact that he died disqualified him" is beyond silly.  Again, color me unsurprised, but quiet amused.


You have to remember that the Jews established the criteria of a messiah they will recognize, the A/A’s demand that he play on their terms or else......


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> You have to remember that the Jews established the criteria of a messiah they will recognize, the A/A’s demand that he play on their terms or else......


I don't have any terms. I am using what is said in the OT.
Personally, I don't believe in a messiah as told in the OT ever happening mainly because the OT is nothing more than the folklore of the tales of a cuture. But, since we have to go by what is in the OT as to what qualifies a person to become the messiah and according to those rules Jesus does not meet those requirements.
It has nothing to do with the future. It has to do with what the person accomplishes in his lifetime. If Jesus actually did it, every Jew would be his follower. It really is the Jews terms and since Jesus was Jewish he must adhere to their rules.

The NT is Paul's attempt at creating a messiah and while knowing what the OT required he could not make the case for the Jews to go for it, so he created his own religion around a man.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> There is a reason why the Jews that lived among Jesus who was a Jew didn't buy it



Uhhhh, far be it from me to point out the obvious, but it’s common knowledge the Church started in Israel, which was the Jewish homeland..........you know, where Jews actually made up the majority and were the first converts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Jesus fulfilling prophecy is the hinge that Christianity hangs on.
> Jesus not fulfilling prophecy disqualified him with the Jews.
> Sounds like your beef is with the Jews not A/As.



Walt.  I’m disappointed that you picked this point to debate.  Please see above.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Uhhhh, far be it from me to point out the obvious, but it’s common knowledge the Church started in Israel, which was the Jewish homeland..........you know, where Jews actually made up the majority and were the first converts.


Oh yeah?, Tell me about what the common knowledge says about when.

There were always,  ALWAYS Jews worshipping something , some body, or some bodies else. Always splinter sects. Always. The vast majority were Torah following Judaism Jews.

You are arguing the equivalent of the Mormons validity within the USA and within Christianity because the First Mormon Church was started here where the most Christians exist and while not the biggest, its growing and will happen to be the biggest...like your prophecies.....it just hasn't happened yet, but wait...you'llllllllll seeeeee.

Within Christianity you have 40,000 splits from that "Original Church". And all think the other 39,999 are wrong.
That was no different than the Jews back then.
Jesus was there to preach what will happen if the Torah wasn't followed. Not there to create a religion.
That happened after he was dead.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 23, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt.  I’m disappointed that you picked this point to debate.  Please see above.


Im not debating so don't be disappointed.
One of those statements is yours and I agree with it.
The other is a statement of fact that Jews don't believe Jesus met their criteria.
As an A/A, I don't have any requirements for him to meet or not meet.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not debating so don't be disappointed.
> One of those statements is yours and I agree with it.
> The other is a statement of fact that Jews don't believe Jesus met their criteria.
> As an A/A, I don't have any requirements for him to meet or not meet.


You must have used the less obvious and non common knowledge point, oh wait...


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 23, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I don't have any terms. I am using what is said in the OT.
> Personally, I don't believe in a messiah as told in the OT ever happening mainly because the OT is nothing more than the folklore of the tales of a cuture. But, since we have to go by what is in the OT as to what qualifies a person to become the messiah and according to those rules Jesus does not meet those requirements.
> It has nothing to do with the future. It has to do with what the person accomplishes in his lifetime. If Jesus actually did it, every Jew would be his follower. It really is the Jews terms and since Jesus was Jewish he must adhere to their rules.
> 
> The NT is Paul's attempt at creating a messiah and while knowing what the OT required he could not make the case for the Jews to go for it, so he created his own religion around a man.


I didn’t have anyone personally in mind. It’s a broad statement with exceptions. I should have noted that to prevent confusion. 

Generally speaking, an A/A will say “if God”..........”then I would believe”.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I didn’t have anyone personally in mind. It’s a broad statement with exceptions. I should have noted that to prevent confusion.
> 
> Generally speaking, an A/A will say “if God”..........”then I would believe”.


I didn't take it personally.
But 
I DO agree with "If God" , but probably different than you mean it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Personally, I don't believe in a messiah as told in the OT ever happening mainly because the OT is nothing more than the folklore



Welp there you go.  That will do it for me.  Enough time wasted.  I can’t take you serious any more.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Welp there you go.  That will do it for me.  Enough time wasted.  I can’t take you serious any more.


But you'll take a book that tells intricate details about an exodus that never happened seriously.
In that same fictitious story it tells about how quickly, how eager and how many gods the jews were willing to and did worship and you want us to believe the writers of the NT didn't capitalize on that?

SFD, YOU do not even acknowledge what is in your own book and you ACT all huffy and offended when you can no longer make ridiculous and un educated (about the subject) claims because of the evidence in front of you.

The only thing that impressed me about your involvement this time was that is lasted about 10 times longer than your usual hit and run contributions, although most of it was taken up with often discussed, widely refuted claims that you continue to bring up as if they have never been brought up.

Bottom line is that in Jewish history they had MANY messiah figures who had MANY followers. A few of them accomplished more things than Jesus, and they still did not qualify as Messiah. You fail to educate yourself or retain what you have been informed on numerous times in here. The only waste is bandwith due to your repetitive claims with ZERO examples to even attempt to back them up, let alone actually ever prove anything.

If you ever took me or any provided information seriously, and bothered to research it,  you wouldn't come here making the claims that you do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> But you'll take a book that tells intricate details about an exodus that never happened seriously.
> In that same fictitious story it tells about how quickly, how eager and how many gods the jews were willing to and did worship and you want us to believe the writers of the NT didn't capitalize on that?
> 
> SFD, YOU do not even acknowledge what is in your own book and you ACT all huffy and offended when you can longer make ridiculous and un educated (about the subject) claims because of the evidence in front of you.
> ...



Bullet, I truly feel sorry for you.  I do.  Have a good day.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet, I truly feel sorry for you.  I do.  Have a good day.


Since you are so kind, do me a favor and explain why you feel sorry for me.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 24, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Generally speaking, an A/A will say “if God”..........”then I would believe”.



I apply pretty much the same standard to anything I believe.


----------



## Israel (Jan 24, 2019)

Even the maintenance of unbelief is as God dependent as every and any estate of man.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 24, 2019)

Israel said:


> Even the maintenance of unbelief is as God dependent as every and any estate of man.


Whatch U talkin bout, Willis?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

Israel said:


> Even the maintenance of unbelief is as God dependent as every and any estate of man.



Apparently even more-so. Hard to kick against the goads and so-forth.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Since you are so kind, do me a favor and explain why you feel sorry for me.



Because you are not broken and sick of your sin.  You don't understand your condition is hopeless.  And either you don't understand or don't care about the enormity of the consequences of you actions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because you are not broken and sick of your sin.  You don't understand your condition is hopeless.  And either you don't understand or don't care about the enormity of the consequences of you actions.


That's just silly.
Be honest -
How do you ignore all the people who have recognized and addressed their issues without believing in the Christian God?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's just silly.
> Be honest -
> How do you ignore all the people who have recognized and addressed their issues without believing in the Christian God?



I'm not aware of anyone who has delivered himself or anyone else from the consequences of their sins other than Christ.  You speak of "issues", in a TEMPORAL sense, I'm assuming.    I'm speaking of consequences in the ETERNAL sense.  Two totally separate concepts.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not aware of anyone who has delivered himself or anyone else from the consequences of their sins other than Christ.  You speak of "issues", in a TEMPORAL sense, I'm assuming.    I'm speaking of consequences in the ETERNAL sense.  Two totally separate concepts.


So your entire statement hinges on the word "sin".
Which would make it only applicable to Christians.
And you know Bullet is Agnostic.....
It would appear your sorrow for Bullet is nothing more than some twisted self satisfaction.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Because you are not broken and sick of your sin.  You don't understand your condition is hopeless.  And either you don't understand or don't care about the enormity of the consequences of you actions.


SFD, What Sin are you talking about? You believe some god had his son killed in order to take away my sin. He either did or didn't , which is it SFD?

Specifically,  what sin do I have?

What condition?

What actions?

I care about your nutty accusations , claims and self gratification about as much as you care about what other religions would say about you.
End the pity party for me and stop pretending that you are any more special than the next person.
I don't feel bad for you. In fact I think you are scared to die and your obsession to include others in your fears and likes is dangerous.

I have given you and everyone else the entire floor to convince me about what you speak. I have opened myself up to you and anyone to show me your god. I have constantly asked you and others to PLEASE just back your claims and assertions.
Not a single darn one of you have even come close to being able to put your proof where your mouth is.

Stop the act. Get off your pedestal. And either back up what you claim or stop.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> So your entire statement hinges on the word "sin".
> Which would make it only applicable to Christians.



This is precisely what I meant in my post above to Bullet.  And no, it's not a self-righteous pity.  It's a true sorrow.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> SFD, What Sin are you talking about? You believe some god had his son killed in order to take away my sin. He either did or didn't , which is it SFD?
> 
> Specifically,  what sin do I have?
> 
> ...



SMH


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> So your entire statement hinges on the word "sin".
> Which would make it only applicable to Christians.
> And you know Bullet is Agnostic.....
> It would appear your sorrow for Bullet is nothing more than some twisted self satisfaction.


These pity parties are a last resort because the ability to back up claims has failed. 
I am telling you,  the more these guys feel bad for me/others, the more Atheist I become.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> SMH


So all you can do is shake your head?
I asked you questions which if you were sincere you would be able to answer.

Shake your head, feel bad, pity me, pray for me do anything that you have to do in order to feel better about your inability to just simply back up what you claim.

How about convincing me?
Why can't you make a statement and claim and then show me an example which is backed by evidence and facts?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This is precisely what I meant in my post above to Bullet.  And no, it's not a self-righteous pity.  It's a true sorrow.


If I tell you that I feel sorry for you that your actions show you aren't following the Noble Eighthfold Path and therefore is putting your achievement of Nirvana in jeopardy.....
I would know that doesn't mean squat to you and therefore had 0 value to you.
If I know it had zero value to you then I would be telling you only because it satisfied ME in some way to tell you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> If I tell you that I feel sorry for you that your actions show you aren't following the Noble Eighthfold Path and therefore is putting your achievement of Nirvana in jeopardy.....
> I would know that doesn't mean squat to you and therefore had 0 value to you.
> If I know it had zero value to you then I would be telling you only because it satisfied ME in some way to tell you.


ExactAmundo.

"Jesus fulfilled 400 Prophecies "

"Oh yeah tell us about them and we will discuss it"

"SMH, I feel bad for you "

Useless, literally useless.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SFD, do you feel bad for me because you feel that I was better off being less informed than I am?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> If I tell you that I feel sorry for you that your actions show you aren't following the Noble Eighthfold Path and therefore is putting your achievement of Nirvana in jeopardy.....
> I would know that doesn't mean squat to you and therefore had 0 value to you.
> If I know it had zero value to you then I would be telling you only because it satisfied ME in some way to tell you.



What it would show me is that you saw some value in me and cared enough for me to try to help me.  I certainly wouldn´t condemn you for that or attribute your kindness to self-righteousness.  I think thatś what any decent person would feel.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 24, 2019)

bullethead said:


> ExactAmundo.
> 
> "Jesus fulfilled 400 Prophecies "
> 
> ...




I honestly believe it’s a form of mental illness.

*


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2019)

ky55 said:


> I honestly believe it’s a form of mental illness.
> 
> *



Yeah, honoring you parents, no lying, stealing, killing.  Loving your neighbor as yourself.  SMH.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, honoring you parents, no lying, stealing, killing.  Loving your neighbor as yourself.  SMH.



All possible in the real world.
No fantasy required....
And no promise of a reward or threat of an eternal punishment. 

*


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What it would show me is that you saw some value in me and cared enough for me to try to help me.  I certainly wouldn´t condemn you for that or attribute your kindness to self-righteousness.  I think thatś what any decent person would feel.


That's where prior history comes in to consideration.
Ive had Christians tell me they would pray for me.
I can appreciate it from certain Christians because I know it comes from a place of caring.
On the flip side, from other Christians, based on prior history, I think its reasonable to question their motives.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, honoring you parents, no lying, stealing, killing.  Loving your neighbor as yourself.  SMH.


Do you think that stuff is exclusive to Christians??
Been going on long before Jesus and will continue among non Jesus fans. SMH


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What it would show me is that you saw some value in me and cared enough for me to try to help me.  I certainly wouldn´t condemn you for that or attribute your kindness to self-righteousness.  I think thatś what any decent person would feel.


The mistake is someone who does not know you assuming that you need some sort of help, pity,  guidance, comfort.. merely because of religious differences/beliefs.

It is the equivalent of you taking someone's dog from their fenced in yard because you think it is abused and unhappy but the truth is that the dog was let out 2 mins earlier to take a squirt and can't wait to get back inside to play with the children and sleep on the couch.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, honoring you parents, no lying, stealing, killing.  Loving your neighbor as yourself.  SMH.


The conclusions you jump to without recognizing or even considering all the other options is not normal. Ignoring the other possibilities and probabilities when presented with alternate information is a sign that things are way off.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The conclusions you jump to without recognizing or even considering all the other options is not normal. Ignoring the other possibilities and probabilities when presented with alternate information is a sign that things are way off.



Well those commands are written in plain English.  If you believe following them represent a form of “mental illness” then I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions as to whether that says more about you or the actual text and which represents sanity and insanity.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> All possible in the real world.
> No fantasy required....
> And no promise of a reward or threat of an eternal punishment.
> 
> *



Possible? Yes.
Commanded? No.  Marked difference.
Check the Local or National News this morning and tell me how that "possible" is working out.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That's where prior history comes in to consideration.
> Ive had Christians tell me they would pray for me.
> I can appreciate it from certain Christians because I know it comes from a place of caring.
> On the flip side, from other Christians, based on prior history, I think its reasonable to question their motives.



Sadly, a wise conclusion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> The mistake is someone who does not know you assuming that you need some sort of help, pity,  guidance, comfort..



Or, as Walt pointed out, the flip side, taking someone who doesn't know you, and assuming their concern for you is out of some sense of self-righteousness or condescension and not heartfelt concern because they see value in you.  I would rather err on the side of giving someone the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well those commands are written in plain English.  If you believe following them represent a form of “mental illness” then I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions as to whether that says more about you or the actual text and which represents sanity and insanity.


Sfd, you cannot possibly be THAT clueless.
Are you saying that before the 10 commandments  NOBODY did those things??
Are you saying that Moses wrote them in PLAIN ENGLISH???
SFD, those are literally unwritten rules that were followed LONG before some some human decided to write them down. They were and still are followed by people who NEVER read them.
Learn your history man!!
Again you are confused in thinking that those words were not uttered or carried out LONG before the story of the 10 commandments was written.

Listen to yourself...written in plain English....
I never said anything about following them being a form of mental illenes.
You THINKING that nobody ever thought of and did those things LONG before they appeared in a fictional tale is what is the mental illness part. 
I swear you are off the deep end man.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Sfd, you cannot possibly be THAT clueless.
> Are you saying that before the 10 commandments  NOBODY did those things??
> Are you saying that Moses wrote them in PLAIN ENGLISH???
> SFD, those are literally unwritten rules that were followed LONG before some some human decided to write them down. They were and still are followed by people who NEVER read them.
> ...



No and there's really no point in continuing this with you.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Or, as Walt pointed out, the flip side, taking someone who doesn't know you, and assuming their concern for you is out of some sense of self-righteousness or condescension and not heartfelt concern because they see value in you.  I would rather err on the side of giving someone the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.


I care and am concerned about others health and well being also, but it does not include me thinking that they need my help and support because I am graced by the love and gifts of a spaghetti monster and they are not.
There is a line. 
And you are way beyond it.

Instead of praying for me and feeling bad for me and you thinking that I something is wrong with me because I don't believe in your fairy tales...go buy a homeless person a sandwich and drink.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No and there's really no point in continuing this with you.


What do think it is that you continue?
All you do is make ridiculous assertions and claims and never explain yourself.
What do you mean by Written in Plain English???


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well those commands are written in plain English.


Commands? By who?
You are smitten with the stories of ancient folklore that pretend they were chosen by a god that liked only them.
You are wide eyed and gushing over a story that says a half million jews who were slaves( that were not) left Egypt though the help of a god(did not) and wandered the desert for 40 years( not a trace of them anywhere that constitutes a force of that size for that long) and while on this trip some god sent an old man up on a mountain to receive commandments on how to be a good person because those things must be commanded because people are too stupid to treat each other nicely unless commanded by some invisible sky buddy. Meanwhile because Ol Mose was gone, a half million people wandering in the desert suddenly gathered up tons of gold(we should roam that desert) , melted it, and made huge idols to worship because they were just too stupid and superstitious to realize that The Lord Thy God was amongst them for the whole trip..
Are you KIDDING ME sfd?



SemperFiDawg said:


> If you believe following them represent a form of “mental illness”


Nope, I never ever said that.
What I did say is that someone who makes a statement about those commandments being written in plain english..and thinking that 1. They came from a god during a 40yr fake trip through the desert, and 2. That people were not already doing those things and had written rules LONG before the made up bible stories. And 3. The same person saying because they are written in Plain English ( which in the fake story they were not and they are only in english so english reading people can read them..) 
THAT person has a mental illness



SemperFiDawg said:


> then I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions as to whether that says more about you or the actual text and which represents sanity and insanity.


The only conclusion that anyone can draw is that you are unable to comprehend my precise answer and that you need to change exactly what I said into something that i most definitely did not say, in order for it to make sense in your mind.

If you looked at read my reply and actually think that I said what you translated it into, then yes...there is an instability that does not allow you to process the words in front of you.


----------



## Israel (Jan 25, 2019)

"I'll take Mental Illnesses for 1000, Alex."

Though I'd probably be naturally inclined to fight SFD for the crown, a wiser referee keeps sending us back to our respective corners. It really would be crazy for us to fight.

But to the extent I am made able to receive SFD's testimony of Jesus Christ, (and, no less, he mine) I am persuaded of a certain confidence that both he and I recognize that to what does not speak of this testimony, we must appear rather insane. After all, as so many are more than willing to point out, we have placed our trust, not in some (even conceded to among many non believers) fine moral teacher, but one who has risen as man from the dead.

Not resuscitated, not appearing after some swooning, but a man stone dead in body for three days. Yes, our faith hinges entirely upon that truth. Any agreement we might have to the excellency of His teaching, whether any other agree or not, becomes moot if in anything He can be found false...and that specifically to His proclamation that His disciples would see him again, alive in body, _after_ his own death.

That he has said many other things (even if one is kindly affected toward his_ apparent _moral teachings) should not likewise be easily dismissed. Others have far more eloquently made the point that His declarations leave no room for His being though _merely another_ very moral man, and teacher. His claims to _His necessity_ and exclusivity (along with His testimony to the power of a faith delivered to His disciples) leaves no room for this.

They will experience and see things well beyond any reasonable explanation as can be found in the natural order. Yeah, miraculous things. Yet, even in this he warns not to be swayed to putting one's faith that (even when the miraculous be demonstrated) the object of faith not be placed there...but in Himself, alone. How much a man may see of power demonstrated from beyond the natural realm_ does nothing_ to the converting of the soul. Yeah...just seeing a miracle assures nothing before God.

The contortions of reason required in seeking to establish the inaccuracy (conceding of accuracy does not _of necessity_ include a full understanding to every matter constructively written) undercut themselves. The argument that "things were added to make Jesus appear in a form He never implied of Himself" or "if He did He was mistaken" becomes more than suspect. But one can easily also apply this to the "Tanakh" which is very much a history and testimony, held by a people...written of "their own", (and embraced) that bear as much witness to their own concupiscence and duplicity (and against them in judgments) in relation to the God they claim to serve (and also by testimony has delivered them) as such a _warts and all_ telling would surely testify to less of meddling in account, than more.

But this of course, only appears to reasonable men. Unreasonable men think their own bolstering of their "high light" reels goes unseen. These writings are very much _as much_ a telling of a people on themselves, and if one says they do not see that, well, they are either lying...or truly believing their own propaganda to such an extreme that mercy for the blind is required. Israel, (in fullness of that name) writing the story, is more than excluded from making themselves...the _hero_ of the story. And that by_ their own plain admission._

For the love of Christ and truth, which plain yarn spinner would include "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" if wanting to present "their hero", their mere construct of_ a Superman _in the narrative? Who would describe Him as in the days of His flesh

[offered up] both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, (or reverent submission, if preferred)?

If one wants to "monkey with the account" to an end of simply presenting _man's superlative, _how much better to have him simply laughing all the way? Death? Ha ha, piece of cake...for me! "Y'all make sure to watch how easy it is...for me!"
But one does not enter into any understanding of these things apart from a recognition and surrender to a something given as gift, and not secured by grasping at.

Yes, to what does not bear this testimony we must submit, and would rather, to being thought insane, than in disagreement or seeking to establish our own righteousness be found at odds with the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

You see, all who bear _this testimony_ also bear _this testimony _of a man who was self convinced of his own lies. And yes, chiefest being that he was, and (may yet see himself according to some lack of light) as _better than others. _To himself he believed himself "always honest" in a sea of men whose "other motives" remain suspiciously viewed...reinforced this to himself. So, yes, one is not incorrect to view me as liar...if to himself I appear so, and he the "more honest". How could I disagree knowing that man who is so plainly in memory? But as testimony of that man was false to himself, it is no hard thing to now submit to being seen as likewise the most scurrilous.

It is, far from being as irksome as once it was, a pleasure.

The only way a man may lose his rightful place of occupation is by believing he is exceptional in it.

I do believe the man who thinks himself _more _honest, believes he is. I just don't believe _in him_, only because he is a liar. And that becomes the rub against which he cannot but react.

He is under dread obligation and weight to show himself right.

Me? I'm as wrong as wrong can be. There's only one I know who doesn't take advantage of that to use it against me.
Why any might trade the knowing of Him for what is all of ready to skewer is theirs to determine.

Know the man you care to. You can't help but do it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> "I'll take Mental Illnesses for 1000, Alex."
> 
> Though I'd probably be naturally inclined to fight SFD for the crown, a wiser referee keeps sending us back to our respective corners. It really would be crazy for us to fight.
> 
> ...



Well said, and



> How much a man may see of power demonstrated from beyond the natural realm_ does nothing_ to the converting of the soul.



very well said.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

The both of you believe a kids story and base your life's happenings from it. Nothing more than that has ever happened.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> "I'll take Mental Illnesses for 1000, Alex."
> 
> Though I'd probably be naturally inclined to fight SFD for the crown, a wiser referee keeps sending us back to our respective corners. It really would be crazy for us to fight.
> 
> ...



I’m reading the book The Gospel according to Jesus.  The thesis is there can only be one LORD in your life and to that LORD you will be a slave; ones own self or Christ. There is no autonomy really. It’s really that simple isn’t it?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m reading the book The Gospel according to Jesus.  The thesis is there can only be one LORD in your life and to that LORD you will be a slave; ones own self or Christ. There is no autonomy really. It’s really that simple isn’t it?


Christ is the crutch for the ones who have convinced themselves,  or have been convinced by others, that they are incapable of doing themselves. 

And, the thesis leaves out all the other crutch figures worldwide that give others the same boost you get from Christ.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Christ is the crutch for the ones who have convinced themselves,  or have been convinced by others, that they are incapable of doing themselves.
> 
> And, the thesis leaves out all the other crutch figures worldwide that give others the same boost you get from Christ.



Yep, I think some people feel the need to serve a master. 

*


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep, I think some people feel the need to serve a master.
> 
> *


 
From what I've seen, some of them have tried their best to "make sense of it all", that could include finding a way to forgive themselves or finding a meaning in life, and having failed to accept the possibility that the task may be impossible, they latch onto one of the ready made guides for meaning that ancient people came up with; usually the one that they were exposed to as children.  Some of them don't try very hard and just bask in the warm fuzzies.  Others keep trying, using the ready guide as a "base of operations" that seems to work well for now, but they keep looking. Those ones are rare.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep, I think some people feel the need to serve a master.
> 
> *



It's not about "feeling a need".  If we are all quiet honest with ourselves, we all serve the Master we WANT to serve.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's not about "feeling a need".  If we are all quiet honest with ourselves, we all serve the Master we WANT to serve.


WANT when convenient. Boasted about for show. When in fact for every other aspect in the persons life ,self serving actions rule the roost and are THE reasons why guilt drives them to the comfort of something beyond what they can stomach in the mirror.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's not about "feeling a need".  If we are all quiet honest with ourselves, we all serve the Master we WANT to serve.


I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> From what I've seen, some of them have tried their best to "make sense of it all", that could include finding a way to forgive themselves or finding a meaning in life, and having failed to accept the possibility that the task may be impossible, they latch onto one of the ready made guides for meaning that ancient people came up with; usually the one that they were exposed to as children.  Some of them don't try very hard and just bask in the warm fuzzies.  Others keep trying, using the ready guide as a "base of operations" that seems to work well for now, but they keep looking. Those ones are rare.



What about the ones that find the truth,are sure of it, and exhibit proof of it through having eternal peace and hope.  I notice those didn’t make your list and I have to ask why.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?



What's your favorite example?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?



Yeah, it would be comical coming from kindergarteners, but from obviously intelligent adults it’s just sad.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> WANT when convenient. Boasted about for show. When in fact for every other aspect in the persons life ,self serving actions rule the roost and are THE reasons why guilt drives them to the comfort of something beyond what they can stomach in the mirror.




Elaborate on this a little. I’d like to see some examples of how this is “in fact” “THE reasons”


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What's your favorite example?



Pick any of Bullet’s. No one even comes close to his silliness.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?


For example....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pick any of Bullet’s. No one even comes close to his silliness.


Pick one and refute it.
Triple Dogg Dare ya


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What about the ones that find the truth,are sure of it, and exhibit proof of it through having eternal peace and hope.  I notice those didn’t make your list and I have to ask why.



I would say they are in the first group.  Of course they belive that what they've discovered is true.  There's a kind of person that knows something might not be true but doesn't care.  That's group two.  Then there's the people who feel like what they've found is the best thing going.  That's group three.  

What's interesting to me is that believers will easily say to non-believers "you don't know for sure that it's NOT true" but are unwilling to admit that what they believe is true might not be.  That seems hypocritical.  Of the three groups, I think the third is the most intellectually honest.  The are very few of them.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Pick any of Bullet’s. No one even comes close to his silliness.





bullethead said:


> Pick one and refute it.
> Triple Dogg Dare ya



Yes.  Please do.

Most recently he has tried to show that Jesus didn't fulfill OT prophesy sufficiently to be the Messiah.  I didn't see you offer much in response.  Can you?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Elaborate on this a little. I’d like to see some examples of how this is “in fact” “THE reasons”


Well. Do you, Sfd, anyone...literally base every action on being Christ like? Do you find yourself making decisions and taking actions that benefit you or do you do everything to please Jesus? Do you do day to day actions that make you feel good , or do you do those things that make your master feel good?
All I ask you is to be honest.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Elaborate on this a little. I’d like to see some examples of how this is “in fact” “THE reasons”


What have you done since the alarm clock went off today?
Do you care to break it down on what was done to serve a Master vs what was done to serve yourself?
(You, meaning everyone that claims to be such a loyal servant of Jesus)
I am dying to get a peek into the lives of all the Messiah wanna be's.

If anyone lived a majority of their life actually serving Jesus, they wouldn't call themselves filthy rags, undeserving,  unworthy etc etc etc.
Those things come about because they are unhappy with themselves which is based from the lives they do live, not claim to live.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Oh, and don't forget, while answering....Jesus is watching ...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  Please do.
> 
> Most recently he has tried to show that Jesus didn't fulfill OT prophesy sufficiently to be the Messiah.  I didn't see you offer much in response.  Can you?


Here is the deal, I have brought up legitimate issues and have asked legitimate questions regarding claims that SFD has made.
He has never made so much as an attempt to back up his claims with any sort of facts or evidence. If he is capable of defending his claims,  he has yet to show it.

So, I will admit that I push the threshold in order to elicit some sort of response besides "SMH, I feel sorry for you, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah" and then when he does jump back in it is not to justify his claims  but instead to make another silly assertion that cannot be backed up.

Out of all my specific and direct questions regarding their ability to back up biblical claims.... the only time I get a response is when I play their game and make a very broad claim.
But I even try my best to get that answered for them...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 25, 2019)

Israel said:


> "I'll take Mental Illnesses for 1000, Alex."
> 
> Though I'd probably be naturally inclined to fight SFD for the crown, a wiser referee keeps sending us back to our respective corners. It really would be crazy for us to fight.
> 
> ...





> "I'll take Mental Illnesses for 1000, Alex."



I'm not touching this subject. Half the things Ive done in my life would probably fall under someone's (even my own sometimes) definition of "mental illness"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I would say they are in the first group.



This group?



> From what I've seen, some of them have tried their best to "make sense of it all", that could include finding a way to forgive themselves or finding a meaning in life, and having failed to accept the possibility that the task may be impossible  , they latch onto one of the ready made guides for meaning that ancient people came up with



Directly contradicts this 



> the ones that find the truth,are sure of it, and exhibit proof of it through having eternal peace and hope


 
yet you ask for an example of a 'poor explanation' by an atheist.  Here you go.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least you stick to you the points you think you can make a case for..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> At least you stick to you the points you think you can make a case for..



Yeah. It's easy to do when you stick to the truth.  Don't have to worry about switching to another argument or denigrating people in order to take the focus of the original point.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah. It's easy to do when you stick to the truth.  Don't have to worry about switching to another argument or denigrating people in order to take the focus of the original point.


Then go back and and state the prophecies that you say are fulfilled and give us valid proof that they are.
If you claim they are true you should have no problem doing so.
Now, I didn't say your reply above was accurate or even truthful...just that you pick and choose to reply to the things that you think you can defend. I did not state that you do a good job.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah. It's easy to do when you stick to the truth.  Don't have to worry about switching to another argument or denigrating people in order to take the focus of the original point.


Please tell us all about how you far more serve your master daily vs how you serve yourself.
Truth is paramount.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah. It's easy to do when you stick to the truth.  Don't have to worry about switching to another argument or denigrating people in order to take the focus of the original point.


And if it is the truth you stick to, then I can see why you avoid answering the biblical claims.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> What have you done since the alarm clock went off today?
> Do you care to break it down on what was done to serve a Master vs what was done to serve yourself?
> (You, meaning everyone that claims to be such a loyal servant of Jesus)
> I am dying to get a peek into the lives of all the Messiah wanna be's.
> ...


Ohhhh so you think we are supposed to constantly “serve” 24/7??? Maybe you break down what you think serve means.

My day starts at 430 with prayer......every day. Since I am also required to be a good steward (including my job) I must give them a full days work. Being a good steward also means taking care of everything you have access to. Let’s see, once my work day ended, I cleaned ceiling fans, toilets, changed light bulbs, and repaired a lock at our church.
Then I came home and cut limbs off the fence, and fed my cows, rode to the store for my mother, stopped at my elderly neighbors house and got her trash out of the kitchen.

Now I’m sitting on the porch grilling steak for my family.

Being a servent of God doesn’t require you to be enslaved, and your filthy rags comment is irrelevant. Study that some more and you’ll find out that the righteousness is as filthy rags is talking about hypocrites trying to do the “good” thinking their good works is going to save them,

I hope he was watching today, first day in a while that I didn’t kick my saw for not cranking on the 2nd pull.

And sorry, no messiah wanna be here.......


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Well. Do you, Sfd, anyone...literally base every action on being Christ like? Do you find yourself making decisions and taking actions that benefit you or do you do everything to please Jesus? Do you do day to day actions that make you feel good , or do you do those things that make your master feel good?
> All I ask you is to be honest.


Don’t dodge a question with a question. Show those facts you spoke of, where’s the source???


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you believe there are things that you can know with absolute certainty?  That would make you pretty special.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ohhhh so you think we are supposed to constantly “serve” 24/7??? Maybe you break down what you think serve means.
> 
> My day starts at 430 with prayer......every day. Since I am also required to be a good steward (including my job) I must give them a full days work. Being a good steward also means taking care of everything you have access to. Let’s see, once my work day ended, I cleaned ceiling fans, toilets, changed light bulbs, and repaired a lock at our church.
> Then I came home and cut limbs off the fence, and fed my cows, rode to the store for my mother, stopped at my elderly neighbors house and got her trash out of the kitchen.
> ...





> My day starts at 430 with prayer......every day. Since I am also required to be a good steward (including my job) I must give them a full days work. Being a good steward also means taking care of everything you have access to. Let’s see, once my work day ended, I cleaned ceiling fans, toilets, changed light bulbs, and repaired a lock at our church.
> Then I came home and cut limbs off the fence, and fed my cows, rode to the store for my mother, stopped at my elderly neighbors house and got her trash out of the kitchen.
> Now I’m sitting on the porch grilling steak for my family.


Geez Im exhausted just from reading that


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This group?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Notice how the more nuanced discussions offered by believers about knowledge and how we get it focuses on the fact that we don't know anything for certain.  That's where they believe God lives; in what we don't know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?



This really got me thinking today that the Bible has a great deal to say about the foolishness and denigration that we see on here on a daily basis.  It’s not new by any means, but certainly nowhere is it more tailor made than the AAA Forum.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Notice how the more nuanced discussions offered by believers about knowledge and how we get it focuses on the fact that we don't know anything for certain.  That's where they believe God lives; in what we don't know.



We?  You got a mouse in your pocket?   Because “I” know a lot of things for certain and I don’t know anyone who believes that other than Athiest.

Judging by what I’ve witnessed here over the years “We” sure seem to be mighty certain there is no God, for a “we” that don’t even know where their knowledge comes from.  In any other theater or age this would represent the crechendo of a hilarious comedy.  Here it’s a hill “we” boastfully die on.  

You need some more examples of “poor explanations” offered by “we”.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ohhhh so you think we are supposed to constantly “serve” 24/7??? Maybe you break down what you think serve means.
> 
> My day starts at 430 with prayer......every day. Since I am also required to be a good steward (including my job) I must give them a full days work. Being a good steward also means taking care of everything you have access to. Let’s see, once my work day ended, I cleaned ceiling fans, toilets, changed light bulbs, and repaired a lock at our church.
> Then I came home and cut limbs off the fence, and fed my cows, rode to the store for my mother, stopped at my elderly neighbors house and got her trash out of the kitchen.
> ...


You did take notice that I specifically put in parentheses who I was talking about when I said "You" right???
But since you asked me,
This is what I would lean to towards "serve".
This just explains it better.
Written by Pastor Andrew Tan	  Sunday, 07 October 2012 00:00

After you have received Jesus as Lord and Saviour, you should serve God.  By the word “serve,” I am not referring first to the content of what you do when serving but its essence.  When I say you should serve God, it means that your entire life, which includes how you live, and what you think, say or do, must be an act of service to God.  That is the essence of serving God.  Thus, Paul, in Romans 6:13, urges us saying
Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to Him as an instrument of righteousness.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We?  You got a mouse in your pocket?   Because “I” know a lot of things for certain.



The “for certain” things are always the very easiest ones to prove. 
Please proceed with your proof.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Don’t dodge a question with a question. Show those facts you spoke of, where’s the source???


If you bothered to read my reply to Ambush, you will see that I upped the ante and made those claims to light the fire under SFDs butt because that is what you guys do to us.
And it worked perfectly, because while there is TOTAL avoidance and no attempt to back up what we ask about biblical claims, you have now jumped in with both feet when I pose some Believer type claims of my own....now all of a sudden the side which avoids backing up claims want me to back them up....and I did say while hard to do that I did at least try.
You guys should try it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you bothered to read my reply to Ambush, you will see that I upped the ante and made those claims to light the fire under SFDs butt because that is what you guys do to us.
> And it worked perfectly, because while there is TOTAL avoidance and no attempt to back up what we ask about biblical claims, you have now jumped in with both feet when I pose some Believer type claims of my own....now all of a sudden the side which avoids backing up claims want me to back them up....and I did say while hard to do that I did at least try.
> You guys should try it.


To add a little more clearly, I made impossible claims to use tactics like we see all the time, and "you" didn't like your own style. "YOU" is whoever has a gripe about it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Geez Im exhausted just from reading that


Lol I was out there until 10pm last night pulling post on an old fence I moved.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We?  You got a mouse in your pocket?   Because “I” know a lot of things for certain and I don’t know anyone who believes that other than Athiest.
> 
> Judging by what I’ve witnessed here over the years “We” sure seem to be mighty certain there is no God, for a “we” that don’t even know where their knowledge comes from.  In any other theater or age this would represent the crechendo of a hilarious comedy.  Here it’s a hill “we” boastfully die on.
> 
> You need some more examples of “poor explanations” offered by “we”.



Tell me what you know for certain?  How do you know it?  

None of the Atheists claim to know there isn't a God.  Not even Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris claim to know for certain that there is no God.  They say that they don't see evidence for one.  Most sensible people will admit that no one knows where consciousness arises from.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> You did take notice that I specifically put in parentheses who I was talking about when I said "You" right???
> But since you asked me,
> This is what I would lean to towards "serve".
> This just explains it better.
> ...


I noticed you quoted me asking what I’ve done  since my alarm went off.

My point is doing good doesn’t make you a Christian, you don’t even have to have God to be a good person.

I’m wondering what your question about what I’ve done since my alarm went off has to do with with your comment below. 

All I asked was for you to elaborate on what this “in fact” self serving actions” being “THE reasons” why guilt drives someone to comfort. I wanted to know because I’m not experiencing guilt. Maybe that’s an example of what I mean below. 


bullethead said:


> WANT when convenient. Boasted about for show. When in fact for every other aspect in the persons life ,self serving actions rule the roost and are THE reasons why guilt drives them to the comfort of something beyond what they can stomach in the mirror.





Spotlite said:


> I still marvel at the poor explanations from some of the naysayers. I’m ok with the non belief part, but some of the stuff they use to try to explain to us as to what’s going on .......and we are called wacky lol ?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Tell me what you know for certain?  How do you know it?
> 
> None of the Atheists claim to know there isn't a God.  Not even Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris claim to know for certain that there is no God.  They say that they don't see evidence for one.  Most sensible people will admit that no one knows where consciousness arises from.


That is a real question that will require an in depth answer.
You will get more response if you say "I know for a fact that you dont know anything for certain"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> The “for certain” things are always the very easiest ones to prove.



Not so. Is it easy to prove light to the blind, sound to the deaf, wisdom to the foolish?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> I noticed you quoted me asking what I’ve done  since my alarm went off.
> 
> My point is doing good doesn’t make you a Christian, you don’t even have to have God to be a good person.
> 
> ...


I wanted to stimulate conversation and receiving straight answers or any answers to my questions of backing up claims was not working.
So I changed tactics.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not so. Is it easy to prove light to the blind, sound to the deaf, wisdom to the foolish?


They are not "certains" to those people


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> If you bothered to read my reply to Ambush, you will see that I upped the ante and made those claims to light the fire under SFDs butt because that is what you guys do to us.
> And it worked perfectly, because while there is TOTAL avoidance and no attempt to back up what we ask about biblical claims, you have now jumped in with both feet when I pose some Believer type claims of my own....now all of a sudden the side which avoids backing up claims want me to back them up....and I did say while hard to do that I did at least try.
> You guys should try it.



Ok gotcha. The new game now is to pretend like you pulled something off when you make “assertions” without any evidence........smooth


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I wanted to stimulate conversation and receiving straight answers or any answers to my questions of backing up claims was not working.
> So I changed tactics.


Ok, sorry I interrupted with my question. My questions are now withdrawn


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> Ok gotcha. The new game now is to pretend like you pulled something off when you make “assertions” without any evidence........smooth


I couldnt get answers the normal way. I was trying to get answers from SFD.
Sorry that you got caught up in it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

bullethead said:


> I couldnt get answers the normal way. I was trying to get answers from SFD.
> Sorry that you got caught up in it.


It’s not your fault that I’m slow. But I’m glad you asked what I did today. I can show my wife what a deal she got. I never realized she got so lucky.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

Spotlite said:


> It’s not your fault that I’m slow. But I’m glad you asked what I did today. I can show my wife what a deal she got. I never realized she got so lucky.


You at least are most likely to converse.  That is appreciated. Thanks


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Tell me what you know for certain?



Why.  You have a documented history of stating that believers are essentially unwashed ignorant masses.  You’re hubris knows no bounds to the point that you paint your ignorance as prideful intelligence.



ambush80 said:


> Most sensible people will admit that no one knows where consciousness arises from.



What sane person would readily admit they have no idea where consciousness arises from, yet cast those who do as non- “sensible.”  

Even a small child inherently knows that knowledge can only come FROM knowledge, life From life, intelligence FROM intelligence, light FROM a light source, truth FROM truth source, good FROM a good source and yes consciousness FROM consciousness.  You know,  all the things Athiest deny with hubristic zeal.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not so. Is it easy to prove light to the blind, sound to the deaf, wisdom to the foolish?



You can now "see" and "hear" and "have wisdom".  It was given to you and now you're special.  We heathens don't know what we're missing, eh?.  Is that the hill you will boastfully die on?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why.  You have a documented history of stating that believers are essentially unwashed ignorant masses.  You’re hubris knows no bounds to the point that you paint your ignorance as prideful intelligence.



Do I really?  Or do you just get your feelings hurt when I disagree with you?

Let's start all over again like buddies.  What do you know for certain and how?



SemperFiDawg said:


> What sane person would readily admit they have no idea where consciousness arises from, yet cast those who do as non- “sensible.”
> 
> Even a small child inherently knows that knowledge can only come FROM knowledge, life From life, intelligence FROM intelligence, light FROM a light source, truth FROM truth source, good FROM a good source and yes consciousness FROM consciousness.  You know,  all the things Athiest deny with hubristic zeal.



I respectfully ask that you demonstrate these claims with some evidence.  Make your case.  How is consciousness connected to the material world?  Does it exist in a place that we can't examine?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Why.  You have a documented history of stating that believers are essentially unwashed ignorant masses.  You’re hubris knows no bounds to the point that you paint your ignorance as prideful intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope a believer PM's you about this and gets you back on track because you're embarrassing yourself a bit.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> You can now "see" and "hear" and "have wisdom".  It was given to you and now you're special.  We heathens don't know what we're missing, eh?.  Is that the hill you will boastfully die on?



Just more claims of divine revelation, and never even a single tiny shred of proof or evidence to support it. 
Delusional at best, mental illness at the worst. 

*


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Do I really?  Or do you just get your feelings hurt when I disagree with you?
> 
> Let's start all over again like buddies.  What do you know for certain and how?
> 
> ...



Tell you what.  Find a child and ask them.  That way you can at least feel older when you don’t understand.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Just more claims of divine revelation, and never even a single tiny shred of proof or evidence to support it.
> Delusional at best, mental illness at the worst.
> 
> *



And delusions of grandeur with psychosis would be intelligence touting itself as super-intelligence yet denying an intelligent etiology.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell you what.  Find a child and ask them.  That way you can at least feel older when you don’t understand.


He has been in discussion with a child in here for the last hour. Can't get an adult answer. It's like,  well talking to child....


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And delusions of grandeur with psychosis would be intelligence touting itself as super-intelligence yet denying an intelligent etiology.



Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not the one claiming a special relationship with a god. 
It would be really difficult to find a better example of a “delusion of grandeur” than that.


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell you what.  Find a child and ask them.  That way you can at least feel older when you don’t understand.



SFD, if we could cross reference and compare your replies to the questions here with the replies of a child, I’m sure the similarities would be unbelieveably similar. 

*


----------



## Brother David (Jan 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'll be honest Bro....
> I dont have a clue who's post you are responding to. Although I see you quoted my post, your response has zip, zero, nada to do with the point I made.


Hint , 1 Timothy 1 will let you know of the men I spoke of . They chose there brand of religion instead of known teachings .


----------



## Brother David (Jan 25, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'll be honest Bro....
> I dont have a clue who's post you are responding to. Although I see you quoted my post, your response has zip, zero, nada to do with the point I made.


Hint , 1 Timothy 1 will let you know of the men I spoke of . They chose there brand of religion instead of mainstream .


----------



## ky55 (Jan 25, 2019)

Brother David said:


> Hint , 1 Timothy 1 will let you know of the men I spoke of . They chose there brand of religion instead of mainstream .



Bro D,
Would you please specifically define “mainstream” religion for us?
It would make things a whole easier for those of us down here in the A/A forum, and it would put an end to all of the squabbling up in the believer’s forums over doctrinal differences.

Your credentials cannot be questioned:



Brother David said:


> Thanks for recognizing that I am called by God .





Brother David said:


> But just for a tidbit of info Christ did tell the disciples that I give you the same power that I have .



You have already established your credibility, so let’s hear the definition.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 25, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tell you what.  Find a child and ask them.  That way you can at least feel older when you don’t understand.



I don't have a child handy.  Besides, I'd rather hear what you have to say.  What is consciousness, where does it originate from and how do you know?


----------



## Spotlite (Jan 25, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Bro D,
> Would you please specifically define “mainstream” religion for us?
> It would make things a whole easier for those of us down here in the A/A forum, and it would put an end to all of the squabbling up in the believer’s forums over doctrinal differences.
> 
> ...


Now that was almost as bad as bringing up old text messages


----------



## Brother David (Jan 26, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Bro D,
> Would you please specifically define “mainstream” religion for us?
> It would make things a whole easier for those of us down here in the A/A forum, and it would put an end to all of the squabbling up in the believer’s forums over doctrinal differences.
> 
> ...


I will be glad to PM you the address of our Church . It would be much easier than a multiple page post !


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 26, 2019)

ky55 said:


> SFD, if we could cross reference and compare your replies to the questions here with the replies of a child, I’m sure the similarities would be unbelieveably similar.
> 
> *



I could only hope for such affirmation.


----------



## Israel (Jan 26, 2019)

Though there may be something discovered of some impetus, call it _first impulse_ if need be, that would press for an expression of myself as less (or more, depending) than self serving, there comes simultaneously _a reproof._ Any, or all may say this knowing is not _true knowing _(this recognition of reproof):

"No one can really see the worm in the apple till they bite..."

How could I dispute that? One's own cautions are sufficient to themselves alone, and learned, or more particularly...taught. One can speak of them, but they are (if any have ever raised teenagers) almost all of what cannot be imparted by willful imposition. Of course this can't disqualify the childless otherwise the ubiquity of lesson is pointless and fallacy easily known. Everyone has _a something_, or _someone in care_ for the teaching, even if it be never more than their very own selves. Their soul.

But I believe I speak here to those who at least know something of, even if it be very slight in their knowing (_perhaps as myself_), of caring beyond one's own self. But, as this remains beyond (well beyond) my own proving; that is, having any care for anything or anyone beyond my own self, it is far safer I occupy _for me _(do you hear _that plain _expression of self service?) that place for which no proof is needed, but unquestionably self evident, and that is as the man who is the very pinnacle of self servitude.

Who wants to contest this? All comers are welcome. Step right up and see what prize you may gain by exceeding me. Do you think you are more concerned with your own comforts than I? Come ahead. We'll see. Do you think you are more bothered by the smallest burr under the saddle than me...try your hand. Or pea...under a hundred mattresses? More irked...by certain seeming inconsistencies...than myself? More given to _self justification?_ Take a shot. And this is the funniest of all for which I await a contest...think more of themselves...than I do of myself?

What do you bring to the table that I will not cause to pale? Yes, I'll speak for all you pikers, you small and pitiful champions of self. Bring your tireless studies and endeavors to support yourself...I am so far past needing them as my laughter at yours is all that will ring in your ears. Bring your diligence and excellence...bring your finest ** meter that to you is so very very "state of the art", kept to revising in all updates and downloads...your so called weapon of self defense and preservation of truth of self identity..."I am _this man_". Bring it if you want fire. Bring musings and imaginations of _your grandeur_ if you care to enter this arena.

Or

Shut up about self servitude. You know nothing of it. Like a child with a stick of lit TNT.

But what will you then do? Make a play for "caring more?" Really? You who have already consigned to all and nothing more than self service...will now opt to play that card? The "but I care...at least some...and more!" feint? Do you think you can have it both ways? "I am the _more honest_  and _caring_ self serving man?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Take a seat cutie pie.

Ain't you embarrassed yet?

"Most men lie more...than I do!"

You ain't been through enough apples yet...keep eating.

1 Tim 1:15


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Israel said:


> Though there may be something discovered of some impetus, call it _first impulse_ if need be, that would press for an expression of myself as less (or more, depending) than self serving, there comes simultaneously _a reproof._ Any, or all may say this knowing is not _true knowing _(this recognition of reproof):
> 
> "No one can really see the worm in the apple till they bite..."
> 
> ...



There's a reason that you think you've discovered some truth that we unbelievers are not privy to.  What is it?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Would anybody like to discuss the nature of consciousness?


----------



## Israel (Jan 26, 2019)




----------



## ambush80 (Jan 26, 2019)

Israel said:


> View attachment 956972



Do distances exist whether we call them something or not?  I think they do and I don't think that that declaration needs any supernatural explanation.  Do you?


----------

