# Jesus wants you to be an intellectual; yes or no



## ambush80 (Dec 9, 2015)

For evergreen.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 9, 2015)

"His ways are not your ways".   I translate this as " There are some things that you will never understand".   Which to me is the same thing as saying "Never mind trying to answer them".  

Which is anti-intellectual.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 9, 2015)

His ways are indeed not our ways, but that doesn't stop me from seeking them. Seek the Lord, while he may be found: To me this seems to suggest a search i.e. intellectualism.

Now where this statement doesn't bode well is with the notion of our reasoning or logical deduction. These don't use a search over time, or, trying of the spirits; but, rather depend upon using 'sensible' deduction to arrive at a conclusion. This is not useful in science and certainly not in faith.

Edit: The more I think about it, good intellectualism (searching) will have tenants of reasoning and logic; but logical deduction without intellectual empiricism is empty.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2015)

I don't know Jesus's opinion on the subject but organized religion certainly doesn't promote it.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> His ways are indeed not our ways, but that doesn't stop me from seeking them. Seek the Lord, while he may be found: To me this seems to suggest a search i.e. intellectualism.
> 
> Now where this statement doesn't bode well is with the notion of our reasoning or logical deduction. These don't use a search over time, or, trying of the spirits; but, rather depend upon using 'sensible' deduction to arrive at a conclusion. This is not useful in science and certainly not in faith.
> 
> Edit: The more I think about it, good intellectualism (searching) will have tenants of reasoning and logic; but logical deduction without intellectual empiricism is empty.



Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find out how Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water or flew up into the sky?  Those are extraordinary claims about physics.  Wouldn't it be beneficial to understand how they happened?

Why isn't there massive emphasis on trying to find out HOW those things happened, particularly by the few scientists who believe they did?


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I don't know Jesus's opinion on the subject but organized religion certainly doesn't promote it.



Please elaborate.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

Madman said:


> Please elaborate.



Madman,

What is your interpretation of Jesus' value of knowledge.

I seem to recall him valuing people coming to him like children; who are in fact not at the height of their intellectual abilities.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> What is your interpretation of Jesus' value of knowledge.
> 
> I seem to recall him valuing people coming to him like children; who are in fact not at the height of their intellectual abilities.



Solemn prayed for wisdom and it was granted by God.
What does the Bible say was the reason Jesus came into the world?  You are trying to compare apples and oranges.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

Madman said:


> Solemn prayed for wisdom and it was granted by God.
> What does the Bible say was the reason Jesus came into the world?  You are trying to compare apples and oranges.




I don't understand what you're saying.  Do you think any scientific or mathematical discoveries have resulted from prayer?

Are you saying that Jesus isn't interested in intellectual pursuit at all or that wasn't his function?  That he might have had an opinion on education and knowledge but that wasn't his main goal?

I believe He made some very specific statements about the "knowledge of this world".


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't understand what you're saying.  Do you think any scientific or mathematical discoveries have resulted from prayer?



Don't read too much into this.  God is for wisdom because he granted it, at least to Solemn.  I see nowhere in Scripture where God or Jesus is opposed to science or math, etc.

Jesus did not come into the world to be a school teacher.
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
John 3:17


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> I seem to recall him valuing people coming to him like children; who are in fact not at the height of their intellectual abilities.



Did Christ tell them intellectually to come to him as little children?

When verses are taken out of context that is called proof texting.  It is very dangerous in learning.

"5 So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." Matthew 27:5

"Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."  Luke 10:37


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I believe He made some very specific statements about the "knowledge of this world".



and they were?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find out how Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water or flew up into the sky?  Those are extraordinary claims about physics.  Wouldn't it be beneficial to understand how they happened?



I don't see why it would be. It doesn't add anything to the principle of salvation for the Bible to describe how he ascended, only that he did, in fact, ascend.



> Why isn't there massive emphasis on trying to find out HOW those things happened, particularly by the few scientists who believe they did?



They probably don't think, as I don't think, it's particularly important.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 10, 2015)

I think the Lord is against anything that might separate you from him in any way. For some, myself, that could be their own reasoning and logic; others may find faith wane upon a scientific, or what is perceived as such, inquiry; and, again, for others neither of these may apply. I'm reminded of a phrase that says, "All things are lawful for me, but not all is expedient" (I'm paraphrasing). If 'scientific' inquiry, where that inquiry has any opinion at all that is not based in empirical knowledge, is going to ashew you from the light, then He's agin' it.

I would also say that some people do in fact see vehement pursuit of scientific knowledge to be a sign of someone of little to no faith. If you're a person of faith, as I am, your life is consumed by it, but not devoured, as it may appear. Someone looking from the outside in may think, "Why don't they know more about their Lord, if He's so great? Why not pursue spiritual knowledge rather than Physical?" They reason correctly, and I am, indeed, at fault. The pursuit of knowledge is never condemned in the Bible, but only the conclusions we may compose. It is, after all, by the knowledge of the law that we may have the knowledge of sin; to gain this knowledge, one must study the Law. Once this is done, it's logical to arrive at the verdict of "I'm a sinner" once you've read, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The logic and reasoning applies where it is simple to understand, and in places where it isn't, it is not. Convenient? Yes, thankfully.


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think it's a worthwhile pursuit to try to find out how Jesus rose from the dead or walked on water or flew up into the sky?  Those are extraordinary claims about physics.  Wouldn't it be beneficial to understand how they happened?



We are talking about an an omnipotent, self-sustaining, being who created the universe from nothing and you wonder how Christ walked on water? 




ambush80 said:


> Why isn't there massive emphasis on trying to find out HOW those things happened, particularly by the few scientists who believe they did?



We know how it happened.  

Exactly how many scientist are there who believe this?  It would pay to look at the extensive list of "foundational scientist" who were theists.  Not sure a poll has been taken of EVERY scientist out there to make the statement that there are only a few.  Have you read about the students, professors, and scientist, who are run out because they profess believing?  It is better for them to keep quit, much like conservative actors in Hollywood.

There is a massive emphasis from the believing community.  We want to know MORE about God and we find out about him in his creation.

Why is the non-believing community not making an effort to explain some of the simplest of problems in their world view?

If everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, where did the order come from?

How did something come from nothing?

In the "nothing to man" evolutionary process where did the extra information come from?  After all humans are smarter then fish.

We now see arguments from the "scientific" community that the Big Bang was probably not the beginning.

As the informational sciences develop and we are able to see deeper and deeper into the human make-up, (the genome) we see more and more evidence of a designer and more and more "scientist" are admitting there must be a prime mover.  

Non believers have enough of their own beliefs they need to defend and try to fix and not spend so much time trying to disprove something they don believe exists.  

But let me ask you this;  Is your problem with Christ or the Christian?


----------



## Madman (Dec 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> "His ways are not your ways".   I translate this as " There are some things that you will never understand".   Which to me is the same thing as saying "Never mind trying to answer them".
> 
> Which is anti-intellectual.



I would call that a stretch, if not an intentional misinterpretation.  Reread Isaiah 55 and then revisit how you come up with that.

Would you not expect the creator's thoughts and ways to be different then your's, to be higher than your's?  When he says "For" in vs. 8 that means you need to pay attention to what he said earlier.

Read vs. 1-7 and then read vs. 8.

He is calling the nations back to himself, he is calling you back to himself.


_*“Come, all you who are thirsty,
    come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
    come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
    without money and without cost.
2 Why spend money on what is not bread,
    and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
    and you will delight in the richest of fare.
3 Give ear and come to me;
    listen, that you may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
    my faithful love promised to David.
4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
    a ruler and commander of the peoples.
5 Surely you will summon nations you know not,
    and nations you do not know will come running to you,
because of the Lord your God,
    the Holy One of Israel,
    for he has endowed you with splendor.”
6 Seek the Lord while he may be found;
    call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways
    and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
    and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
*_


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 10, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't see why it would be. It doesn't add anything to the principle of salvation for the Bible to describe how he ascended, only that he did, in fact, ascend.
> 
> 
> 
> They probably don't think, as I don't think, it's particularly important.



Not important?  The most miraculous things that might have ever happened and you don't think people should care how?

What if a rock was observed falling up or levitating?  Don't you think that people everywhere and even some believers (in interest of a miracle) would try to figure out why?

Or on second thought, would believers insist that no scientific study should be done on it; that it should be enshrined with gold and protected from any human contact?

Which scenario do you think is most likely?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 10, 2015)

Madman said:


> Please elaborate.


Without hashing out the obvious I think as far as Christianity goes, the fact that the original intent of the early Christian leaders was to never even let your eyes be able to even read the Bible says it all.
That equates to "we will tell you what we think you should know"
That's the opposite of promoting intellectualism.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Without hashing out the obvious I think as far as Christianity goes, the fact that the original intent of the early Christian leaders was to never even let your eyes be able to even read the Bible says it all.
> That equates to "we will tell you what we think you should know"
> That's the opposite of promoting intellectualism.



One more time...



> Jesus wants you be intellectual; yes or no.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Not important?  The most miraculous things that might have ever happened and you don't think people should care how?
> 
> What if a rock was observed falling up or levitating?  Don't you think that people everywhere and even some believers (in interest of a miracle) would try to figure out why?
> 
> ...



Neither.

Why should people care to know the physics of Jesus' ascension?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> One more time...



Read posts 4 and 6
One more time....


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Without hashing out the obvious I think as far as Christianity goes, the fact that the original intent of the early Christian leaders was to never even let your eyes be able to even read the Bible says it all.
> That equates to "we will tell you what we think you should know"
> That's the opposite of promoting intellectualism.



I don't.  You don't write letters if you don't want them read.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Without hashing out the obvious I think as far as Christianity goes, the fact that the original intent of the early Christian leaders was to never even let your eyes be able to even read the Bible says it all.
> That equates to "we will tell you what we think you should know"
> That's the opposite of promoting intellectualism.



Now! Now! Because some claim what you say does not make it fact.


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Not important?  The most miraculous things that might have ever happened and you don't think people should care how?
> 
> What if a rock was observed falling up or levitating?  Don't you think that people everywhere and even some believers (in interest of a miracle) would try to figure out why?
> 
> ...



Some did try to explain it away, _"This man can force demons out of people only with the help of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons.” Matt. 12:24_

The believer calls them miracles.  In the Biblical context it would direct the observer to a divine agent, i.e. the Christ.


_" As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7 “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing." John 9:3-7_


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> I don't.  You don't write letters if you don't want them read.


If you control who can read those letters are you promoting intellectualism?
If an atheist teacher only provided childrent of atheists with study materials are they promoting intellectualism overall?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Now! Now! Because some claim what you say does not make it fact.


That sounds awfully familiar. 
Some even claim that to translate the Bible into a language readable by the masses was punishable by death and that punishment was in fact carried out.
I'm certainly open to facts that shows I've got that wrong.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

Walt, that is how some early leaders controlled the population.  Not the intent of the author.

My kids are in a private, Christian school, and I assure you guys that they are challenged intellectually and pushed to be high achievers.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Walt, that is how some early leaders controlled the population.  Not the intent of the author.
> 
> My kids are in a private, Christian school, and I assure you guys that they are challenged intellectually and pushed to be high achievers.



I went to a Fairly Prestigious Baptist High School in Augusta my Senior year.  Some of the wealthiest families sent their kids there.  There was very little Emphasis on Science.  I don't recall seeing a lab. That's just my little anecdotal input.

What I guarantee is that they don't try to use science to explain the miracles.  Why?  Why is it OK to try to find out how the rest of the world works but not those instances where the laws of physics got suspended?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> Some did try to explain it away, _"This man can force demons out of people only with the help of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons.” Matt. 12:24_
> 
> The believer calls them miracles.  In the Biblical context it would direct the observer to a divine agent, i.e. the Christ.
> 
> ...



Those aren't explanations.  Now why in the world would you not want to know HOW that happened?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Walt, that is how some early leaders controlled the population.  Not the intent of the author.
> 
> My kids are in a private, Christian school, and I assure you guys that they are challenged intellectually and pushed to be high achievers.


Note I specified organized religion.
And while I don't doubt your kids are getting an excellent education just the fact that they are in a Christian school and admitadly I'm guessing here, is that their religious lessons are skewed in a certain direction?
Is it truly promoting intellectualism if you are told/indoctrinated in who's right and who's wrong? Particularly without proof of that?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I think the Lord is against anything that might separate you from him in any way. For some, myself, that could be their own reasoning and logic; others may find faith wane upon a scientific, or what is perceived as such, inquiry; and, again, for others neither of these may apply. I'm reminded of a phrase that says, "All things are lawful for me, but not all is expedient" (I'm paraphrasing). If 'scientific' inquiry, where that inquiry has any opinion at all that is not based in empirical knowledge, is going to ashew you from the light, then He's agin' it.
> 
> I would also say that some people do in fact see vehement pursuit of scientific knowledge to be a sign of someone of little to no faith. If you're a person of faith, as I am, your life is consumed by it, but not devoured, as it may appear. Someone looking from the outside in may think, "Why don't they know more about their Lord, if He's so great? Why not pursue spiritual knowledge rather than Physical?" They reason correctly, and I am, indeed, at fault. The pursuit of knowledge is never condemned in the Bible, but only the conclusions we may compose. It is, after all, by the knowledge of the law that we may have the knowledge of sin; to gain this knowledge, one must study the Law. Once this is done, it's logical to arrive at the verdict of "I'm a sinner" once you've read, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." The logic and reasoning applies where it is simple to understand, and in places where it isn't, it is not. Convenient? Yes, thankfully.



There it is.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> That sounds awfully familiar.
> Some even claim that to translate the Bible into a language readable by the masses was punishable by death and that punishment was in fact carried out.
> I'm certainly open to facts that shows I've got that wrong.



I think there was very early on issues with heretics corrupting scripture and  " just anybody" translating scripture was not a go.  This should not be confused with  denying scripture and content to the masses.

I understand that scripture in the form of the Bible ( written form) was available to the masses in most affluent church buildings early on and that Latin was the formal language of written documents.  Bibles were expensive ( they were hand copied, there were few, and prone to concerns of wear and tear) and usually chained with a lock in churches because--- people would steal them. But the public had access.

Very few people were educated with good reading skills back when and depended on the honesty and integrity of  relatively few competent readers, historians and scolars who could relate and elaborate what was writ. 

Unfortunately heretics were dealt with too severely by christian authorities... but the content of scripture was always made available to the masses in forms they could understand.

The reading of scripture has long been a tradition in christian worship ( services-mass). The historical formal prayers of orthodox Christians are word for word taken from scripture.  Also scripture was translated visually, very early on, in the form of artistic works, such as paintings, sculptures, glass windows, icons etc...

So the caution was not that scripture should not be translated into other languages or forms, it was that it should be done by competent people. I know that much of the basis for this caution was from scripture itself. 

  1Thimothy 3:14-15 

 15 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church was always on guard as to who did what with the articles of the truth. It still does.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think there was very early on issues with heretics corrupting scripture and  " just anybody" translating scripture was not a go.  This should not be confused with  denying scripture and content to the masses.
> 
> I understand that scripture in the form of the Bible ( written form) was available to the masses in most affluent church buildings early on. Bibles were expensive ( they were hand copied, there were few, and prone to concerns of wear and tear) and usually chained with a lock in churches because--- people would steal them. But the public had access.
> 
> ...


I admit I haven't heard the "if we translate the Bible people will steal them" angle before.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think there was very early on issues with heretics corrupting scripture and  " just anybody" translating scripture was not a go.  This should not be confused with  denying scripture and content to the masses.
> 
> I understand that scripture in the form of the Bible ( written form) was available to the masses in most affluent church buildings early on. Bibles were expensive ( they were hand copied, there were few, and prone to concerns of wear and tear) and usually chained with a lock in churches because--- people would steal them. But the public had access.
> 
> ...



My father was a simple Baptist preacher.  He didn't do much book learnin' on the Bible but he didn't mind telling people what he thought it said.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I admit I haven't heard the "if we translate the Bible people will steal them" angle before.



NoR have eye. (Hope you didn't get that impression from my poor rendering of some ideas on bible editing...and language and meaning issues in translation.


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> If you control who can read those letters are you promoting intellectualism?



Walt,

I don't understand, the letters were available to all to read, who were these "early Christian leaders" who withheld the information?


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

The beauty of Christianity regards the assimilation of its concepts and doctrines is that you don't have to be "smart" intellectually to get them. As a matter of fact smarts or good intellectual faculty with a good seasoning of ego usually puts an adherent at a disadvantage over the someone that has to go on instincts alone--because their intellect is locked up either by genetics, ADD, environment, etc... 

Alot more can be put into an empty pot, even by accident spill, than a half filled one with a content sucking the lid down and shut tight.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> We are talking about an an omnipotent, self-sustaining, being who created the universe from nothing and you wonder how Christ walked on water?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe 8% of the members of the Royal Academy of Science identify as Deists.

Scientists are trying to answer those questions every day.  Aren't you glad for it?  Why is there a Creation Museum in Kentucky if not for Creationists trying to explain their idiotic views with science?  Why is the question of what happened during the flood open to inquiry but not the condition of Jesus' feet when he flew?  (See.  This is me making the first steps toward a scientific inquiry of how Jesus flew by looking at his feet for clues).  Perhaps it was the same physical process that allowed him to walk on water.  Perhaps he was levitating and not actually bearing on the water's surface.  Maybe Jesus could give you a very simple explanation.  "Well, you see I changed the electron spin and the photon vector of the soles of my feet and it produced a gravitational revulsion causing lift.  Now go make yourself a flying car!!!!"  

Or suspend burn victims off the sheets.

My problem is with people holding beliefs about the world that are clearly untrue and acting upon them in deleterious ways.   

Take note.  It's not just having the beliefs, it's acting on them.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> There it is.



You have a rather polarized way of reading, don't you? I'm sure you noticed I didn't say "God hates science!" ...right?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I believe 8% of the members of the Royal Academy of Science identify as Deists.
> 
> Scientists are trying to answer those questions every day.  Aren't you glad for it?  Why is there a Creation Museum in Kentucky if not for Creationists trying to explain their idiotic views with science?  Why is the question of what happened during the flood open to inquiry but not the condition of Jesus' feet when he flew?  (See.  This is me making the first steps toward a scientific inquiry of how Jesus flew by looking at his feet for clues).  Perhaps it was the same physical process that allowed him to walk on water.  Perhaps he was levitating and not actually bearing on the water's surface.  Maybe Jesus could give you a very simple explanation.  "Well, you see I changed the electron spin and the photon vector of the soles of my feet and it produced a gravitational revulsion causing lift.  Now go make yourself a flying car!!!!"
> 
> ...



And, again, the forest is not seen for the trees.

I'll be sure not to hand a twenty to that mother and her two children in front of Kroger if they're there again this week.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My father was a simple Baptist preacher.  He didn't do much book learnin' on the Bible but he didn't mind telling people what he thought it said.



Ah! Hope you distinguished, intellectually, between your father and the Father and what was said by both and not confuse the two.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> And while I don't doubt your kids are getting an excellent education just the fact that they are in a Christian school and admitadly I'm guessing here, is that their religious lessons are skewed in a certain direction?
> Is it truly promoting intellectualism if you are told/indoctrinated in who's right and who's wrong? Particularly without proof of that?



What brand of intellectualism are we discussing?   I do not think it is counter intellectual to have a belief system, otherwise, the only folks who could claim to actually be intellectuals are agnostics, as they do not claim anything (and, if the basis for "knowing" is concrete evidence then nobody really "knows").

My kids have science labs.  They dissect critters.  They discuss evolution (granted, it is presented as theory, but it is presented).  There is a heavy emphasis on math, science, and literature.  

But, intellectual pursuits extend way beyond origins.  And the belief in a creator in no way declares that a person ought stop trying to understand the mechanics of creation, or math, or literature.   It just means a person believes in something.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You have a rather polarized way of reading, don't you? I'm sure you noticed I didn't say "God hates science!" ...right?



No.  You very eloquently stated that to the believer, there is more important stuff than scientific inquiry and that in fact, scientific inquiry might lead one away from God.

Is that about right?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> And, again, the forest is not seen for the trees.
> 
> I'll be sure not to hand a twenty to that mother and her two children in front of Kroger if they're there again this week.




You can do the same thing without Jesus and in my opinion for a better reason.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

To say belief eliminates intellectual pursuits is very limiting.  Atheists could no longer be intellectuals, because they believe there is no God.  Neither could Christians, or muslims, or hindus.  People of all these worldviews have done many things to advance humanity for the better.  

I would venture a guess that many of the great mathematicians of the early 20th century who engineered flight and eventually space travel were believers in something.  Same could be said for many literary and musical giants throughout history.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> What brand of intellectualism are we discussing?   I do not think it is counter intellectual to have a belief system, otherwise, the only folks who could claim to actually be intellectuals are agnostics, as they do not claim anything (and, if the basis for "knowing" is concrete evidence then nobody really "knows").
> 
> My kids have science labs.  They dissect critters.  They discuss evolution (granted, it is presented as theory, but it is presented).  There is a heavy emphasis on math, science, and literature.
> 
> But, intellectual pursuits extend way beyond origins.  And the belief in a creator in no way declares that a person ought stop trying to understand the mechanics of creation, or math, or literature.   It just means a person believes in something.




Would you say that the claim of walking on water is a claim about physical matter and could be explained by physics?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> To say belief eliminates intellectual pursuits is very limiting.  Atheists could no longer be intellectuals, because they believe there is no God.  Neither could Christians, or muslims, or hindus.  People of all these worldviews have done many things to advance humanity for the better.
> 
> I would venture a guess that many of the great mathematicians of the early 20th century who engineered flight and eventually space travel were believers in something.  Same could be said for many literary and musical giants throughout history.




When people become more intellectual they tend to become less literal about their religious texts.  Indeed, sometimes they merely retain an identity of a religion for cultural reasons. Although there are some scientists who most certainly understand radiometric dating and still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  I don't know how they do it.  Do you?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Would you say that the claim of walking on water is a claim about physical matter and could be explained by physics?



No.  But, is the claim relevant to physical matter?  Or is the point of the claim the miracle?

Disregard you opinion on the event and think about it........would walking on water be considered miraculous if it could be explained via physics?


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> My problem is with people holding beliefs about the world that are clearly untrue and acting upon them in deleterious ways.



I agree 100%!!  "something came from nothing" is a perfect example.



ambush80 said:


> Take note.  It's not just having the beliefs, it's acting on them.



Noted. I would want the Christian to act on the teachings of Christ, wouldn't you?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know how they do it.  Do you?



Nope


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You can do the same thing without Jesus and in my opinion for a better reason.



And the better reason is?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> NoR have eye. (Hope you didn't get that impression from my poor rendering of some ideas on bible editing...and language and meaning issues in translation.



No I was being somewhat of smarty pants to be honest.
In all my reading on the subject I've just never come across your possible explanations to the specific subject as to why the early church didn't want the Bible translated and available to the masses. I think many of your responses may be true but "after the fact ". I'm skeptical about the church not wanting translating to be done, under punishment of death, because "heretics might change things". Unless of course they wanted to protect their ability to be the only ones doing the changing.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> And the better reason is?



Not based on something unprovable.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No.  You very eloquently stated that to the believer, there is more important stuff than scientific inquiry and that in fact, scientific inquiry might lead one away from God.
> 
> Is that about right?



Please forgive me, your post lead me to another, incorrect conclusion; all at my own fault.

You missed the part where I put a specific definition to what 'scientific' means; but, other than that, for some, I think it to be true.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> No.  But, is the claim relevant to physical matter?  Or is the point of the claim the miracle?
> 
> Disregard you opinion on the event and think about it........would walking on water be considered miraculous if it could be explained via physics?



It would move from miraculous to interesting.  If there were found to be a rock levitating in the Mojave Desert it might be thought to be miraculous.  If it was discovered that the rock has certain properties, and the location has certain properties, causing the rock to levitate, and that these conditions exist only there, I would call that interesting.  

If there remained no modicum of an explanation I might call that a miracle.

If Jesus were to tell me how he changed the molecules of his feet but then told me that the energy required is not available in the Universe, that he made it just for this moment, I would call that a miracle and it would be the same as him saying "I just did it".

You know I've always contended that if one were inclined to believe in Miracles that one probably doesn't need an explanation for them.  And that, there, is anti intellectual.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Nope




I suppose it's the same process of compartmentalization that happens with people of moderate belief.  

"This stuff we analyze with this system and this stuff we analyze with a different system."


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Although there are some scientists who most certainly understand radiometric dating and still believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  I don't know how they do it.  Do you?



They do it the same way you say "something came from nothing", and genetic information increased on its own.

Sounds like y'all are two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Not based on something unprovable.



Are you saying God is "unprovable"?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> They do it the same way you say "something came from nothing", and genetic information increased on its own.
> 
> Sounds like y'all are two sides of the same coin.



I have never once said that here or in real life.

I've said its possible.  I more often say I don't know.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> Are you saying God is "unprovable"?



Start another thread or bring up one of the old ones with the Willard assertion.


I'll participate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> What brand of intellectualism are we discussing?   I do not think it is counter intellectual to have a belief system, otherwise, the only folks who could claim to actually be intellectuals are agnostics, as they do not claim anything (and, if the basis for "knowing" is concrete evidence then nobody really "knows").
> 
> My kids have science labs.  They dissect critters.  They discuss evolution (granted, it is presented as theory, but it is presented).  There is a heavy emphasis on math, science, and literature.
> 
> But, intellectual pursuits extend way beyond origins.  And the belief in a creator in no way declares that a person ought stop trying to understand the mechanics of creation, or math, or literature.   It just means a person believes in something.


I think your first question is the key..
I'm coming specifically from the angle of promoting intellectualism strictly from the standpoint of providing information without skewing or leading the one being provided the information in any way. Once their intellectual view is narrowed for example being taught their is one true God then you are not truly promoting intellectualism.
And by the way in my view promoting intellectualism would include providing information about Christianity  (and Islam and ...) as long as it is not skewed in one direction or another.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think your first question is the key..
> I'm coming specifically from the angle of promoting intellectualism strictly from the standpoint of providing information without skewing or leading the one being provided the information in any way. Once their intellectual view is narrowed for example being taught their is one true God then you are not truly promoting intellectualism.
> And by the way in my view promoting intellectualism would include providing information about Christianity  (and Islam and ...) as long as it is not skewed in one direction or another.



I would add that making a statement like "You will never understand it so don't even try" is equally dubious.......DUUUUUUUbious  (in my best Andy Griffith voice)


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I would add that making a statement like "You will never understand it so don't even try" is equally dubious.......DUUUUUUUbious  (in my best Andy Griffith voice)


Generally that's said by someone who doesn't want you to understand it. Reduces the chances you will ever learn anything different.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 11, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> To say belief eliminates intellectual pursuits is very limiting.  Atheists could no longer be intellectuals, because they believe there is no God.  Neither could Christians, or muslims, or hindus.  People of all these worldviews have done many things to advance humanity for the better.
> 
> I would venture a guess that many of the great mathematicians of the early 20th century who engineered flight and eventually space travel were believers in something.  Same could be said for many literary and musical giants throughout history.



I can agree with this.
What purpose would an individual's intellect serve if you didn't then formulate your own beliefs from it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> No I was being somewhat of smarty pants to be honest.
> In all my reading on the subject I've just never come across your possible explanations to the specific subject as to why the early church didn't want the Bible translated and available to the masses. I think many of your responses may be true but "after the fact ". I'm skeptical about the church not wanting translating to be done, under punishment of death, because "heretics might change things". Unless of course they wanted to protect their ability to be the only ones doing the changing.



Your putting too much spice in the soup. Really. The first heretics were people with a spiritual cosmology very different from Christianity. They claimed that their "schemes" "explained" Christianity better than orthodox Christians did to explain itself. Or in other words they wanted to absorb Christianity into their spiritual tradition(s). In doing so they misrepresented the basics of Christianity not to mention distorting it  so that it was something else completely.

Initially heretics proceeded from  beliefs into  special secret knowledge and that perfection or awakening was a perfection of the intellect... Simple or ordinary stiffs were being mislead and abused... not unlike what cults do to bright and not so bright people today.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> They do it the same way you say "something came from nothing", and genetic information increased on its own.
> 
> Sounds like y'all are two sides of the same coin.


Here is the problem. I do not know of an atheist or non believer in gods that have said, let alone actually believe "something came from nothing". In EVERY case it is always a religious person incorrectly crediting a non believer for that phrase, just as you are doing.

The reasons that a non believer/agnostic/atheist do not say "something came from nothing" is because we admit to not knowing and we do not know if there has or has not always been something. It (energy, elements, matter, etc)may not always be in the state it is currently but it certainly may have always been.

You are trying to flip a two headed coin and claim we are cheating.


----------



## Madman (Dec 11, 2015)

bullethead said:


> It (energy, elements, matter, etc)may not always be in the state it is currently but it certainly may have always been.
> 
> You are trying to flip a two headed coin and claim we are cheating.



Every effect MUST have a cause.  

You expect the the believer to "prove" God yet your position defies logic.

"I don't know" is not good enough when you demand answers from the other side.

It is hypocritical.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 11, 2015)

Madman said:


> Every effect MUST have a cause.
> 
> You expect the the believer to "prove" God yet your position defies logic.
> 
> ...



Evey effect MUST have a cause.
(Except YOUR effect)

See above about defying logic.

Unlike the other side I am not claiming that I know something. The universal truth should be easy to prove with the same proof universally.

It is honesty.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2015)

Madman said:


> Every effect MUST have a cause.
> 
> You expect the the believer to "prove" God yet your position defies logic.
> 
> ...


Surely you aren't being serious?


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Dec 12, 2015)

Matthew 28
Mark 16

The "Great Commission"

Go and teach the Word. Make new disciples and get them baptized.

This requires some level of intellectualism.
You, as a "fisher of men" (Matt 4:19) (Mark 1:17), should be able to EXPLAIN the foundation of your beliefs to convince others.
That is called Christian apologetics.  Defending the faith from critics and answering the natural skepticism of people who are just starting to think seriously about Christianity.  Apologetics argue with more depth than just quoting John 3:16 and saying if your heart wants Him, the Holy Spirit will enter you and give you full understanding (as full as you'll ever need, anyway).


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 12, 2015)

GunnSmokeer said:


> Matthew 28
> Mark 16
> 
> The "Great Commission"
> ...



1.  "Natural skepticism"-  

Let's talk about this one.  Would you agree that most of the natural skepticism arises from the claims of miracles?  Ultimately, even Daniel Lane Craig will tell you that miracles go unexplained and as miracles, they need not be pursued as subjects of inquiry.  Does that sound intellectual to you?  Does that sound like a good use for an inquiring mind?  

Next are the claims about things like Heaven and He11, places that We have to take the Bible's word for that they exist.  One book.  That's where to get all the information about these curious places.  No corroborating literature.  No peer review.  Does that sound scientific or intellectual?

I've gathered from the many discussions with believers that the reason they believe what is said in the Bible is real is that they have had some revelation.  These revelations range from jailhouse conversions to near death experiences to drunken soul searches.  All in all it seems that one has to experience something extremely personal, indemonstrable, and otherwise irrational (the same method of revelation about the Lotto or the problem with a water heater would be dismissed).  

And this weird instance is enough to believe any and all truly bizarre claims made in a book.  One book. That's not intellectual either.

2. "As full as you'll ever need, anyway"-

Do some people need less access to understanding?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 12, 2015)

GunnSmokeer said:


> Matthew 28
> Mark 16
> 
> The "Great Commission"
> ...



I agree that teaching the word requires some measure of intelect.  
But so does tying your shoelaces.
A number of the various definitions of intellectual contains the phrase "one who thinks logically". You can logically get to SOMETHING created the universe but once you go past that and claim as fact that the Christian God created the universe you have left the realm of logic and entered the realm  of personal belief.


----------



## Madman (Dec 12, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> Surely you aren't being serious?



Please revisit middle school science and then reformulate your argument.

EVERY effect MUST have and ANTECEDENT cause.

Admit it or don't it is a fact.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2015)

Middle school science.
The Law of Causality.
The Law of Conservation of Energy


----------



## bullethead (Dec 12, 2015)

Madman said:


> Please revisit middle school science and then reformulate your argument.
> 
> EVERY effect MUST have and ANTECEDENT cause.
> 
> Admit it or don't it is a fact.



I gotsta know...I gotsta know...

What is your God's antecedent cause?


----------



## Madman (Dec 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I've said its possible.



Say that out loud three times and see if it make ANY logical sense at all.

SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.


Yea.  Doesn't make any sense to anyone else either.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 13, 2015)

Madman said:


> Say that out loud three times and see if it make ANY logical sense at all.
> 
> SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
> SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
> ...


Can you explain where your god came from?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Can you explain where your god came from?


Don't be silly.....
God always was therefore didn't "come from" anything.
Just ignore the total contradiction...


----------



## 660griz (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> Say that out loud three times and see if it make ANY logical sense at all.
> 
> SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
> SOMETHING may have come from NOTHING.
> ...



Speak for yourself.
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.5ntdcxfsg

This has of course all been covered before. I fully expect this to be ignored and "something can't come from nothing" to be spouted time and again.


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

660griz said:


> Speak for yourself.
> https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.5ntdcxfsg
> 
> This has of course all been covered before. I fully expect this to be ignored and "something can't come from nothing" to be spouted time and again.



"At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum."

No Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says exactly what the name implies.  Something happens but we do not know what, not to mention the fact that there is already matter there for "something to happen too".

Heisenberg started with energy and particle movement, not nothing.

You live in the dark ages where "scientist" still believed that tadpoles spontaneously generated in a mud puddle.

now you honestly believe that something can come from nothing.

It just keeps getting better.  Now that we know your position on that please tell us where the additional information came from when those tadpoles evolved into humans.

I am assuming you believe humans are of a higher order.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> "At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum."
> 
> No Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says exactly what the name implies.  Something happens but we do not know what, not to mention the fact that there is already matter there for "something to happen too".
> 
> ...




Madman,

Which is it? Can science give insight into the beginnings of the Universe or not?   Seems that you believe in the findings of science if it supports your creationist position but think it's completely wrong when it suggests no need for a creator.

You believe science about Germ Theory but not Evolution.  Why?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> "At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum."
> 
> No Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says exactly what the name implies.  Something happens but we do not know what, not to mention the fact that there is already matter there for "something to happen too".
> 
> ...



You're a derisive feller for someone who believes in the magical sky fairy of olden lore =D. Personally I prefer the flying spaghetti monster since presumably his meatbally goodness will make for an awesome eternal feast in the afterlife. Also he doesn't need a creator either since he's the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omniraptor so don't give me that 'something cannot come from nothing' bullcrap. I wonder if the FSM will allow a side of garlic toast or if that would be considered blasphemous...

The one thing I hate about him is the FSM I know doesn't have a sense of justice.. Even with all those awful sinners and other assorted salad eaters living amongst us he never bothered to create a metaphysical realm of eternal suffering to prop up my delicate sensibilities about how me and my sort are the chosen ones of the FSM, and everyone else is going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored anyway. So I guess ultimately you get to enjoy his meaty proceeds the same as true believers like myself =(.

::Endrant::

Hmm.. no matter how ridiculous I try to make my belief I can't convince myself that it's the only exception to your proposed rule 'something cannot come from nothing'. I have to believe since you seem to be a christian from your other posts that you believe at least one entity came from nothing since we all exist now.. you just somehow think your view that it is God rather than what we know as the universe that first existed without being created is a more scientifically sound view. You can cut the pseudo-intellectual superiority complex. We do not know how the universe may have started, or if it 'started' as we understand the word at all, but it is better to say that than to claim to have personal knowledge of a creator of the universe which you can furnish no proof of.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> You're a derisive feller for someone who believes in the magical sky fairy of olden lore =D. Personally I prefer the flying spaghetti monster since presumably his meatbally goodness will make for an awesome eternal feast in the afterlife. Also he doesn't need a creator either since he's the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omniraptor so don't give me that 'something cannot come from nothing' bullcrap. I wonder if the FSM will allow a side of garlic toast or if that would be considered blasphemous...
> 
> The one thing I hate about him is the FSM I know doesn't have a sense of justice.. Even with all those awful sinners and other assorted salad eaters living amongst us he never bothered to create a metaphysical realm of eternal suffering to prop up my delicate sensibilities about how me and my sort are the chosen ones of the FSM, and everyone else is going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored anyway. So I guess ultimately you get to enjoy his meaty proceeds the same as true believers like myself =(.
> 
> ...



Nail=Head


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Madman,
> 
> Which is it? Can science give insight into the beginnings of the Universe or not?   Seems that you believe in the findings of science if it supports your creationist position but think it's completely wrong when it suggests no need for a creator.
> 
> You believe science about Germ Theory but not Evolution.  Why?



Ambush,

I constantly take apart what I believe and put it back together.  I study fossil findings, scientific papers, etc. to see if they fit my world view.  

I used to be a "non-believer".  Science led me, as it has too many people to a "prime mover" because I realized what science showed was not what I had been taught .

I believe a very valid question, for everyone to consider is; “was there EVER a time when nothing existed?   If the answer is “yes” then how did it get here?  If the answer is “no” then what has science missed?  We know that every effect must an antecedent cause.   How can that be explained?

From science, and engineering I know certain things exist and happen.  For instance, everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder; however ameba to man evolution ADDS information.  Where would that come from?  I believe in evolution, survival of the fittest, the finch with the best beak to forage for the food at the time lives, the others die, if you go into the Natural History Museum in England, there are finches when you enter and throughout the “evolutionary process” shown they are finches when you leave, not monkeys.

I look at computer code, and language, and music, I see intelligence writing that, then I look at the human genome, it is code, therefore I believe there needs to be intelligence “writing that”.

For my worldview to work there needs to be a “prime mover” an eternal, self-excitant, being that could start it, for the non-believer’s world view to work there cannot be a “prime mover”.  

Look up the scientist that were once non-believers and then became theists, they can describe more eloquently than I can.

Then I began thinking about time (X) iterations (X) chance equals the universe as we see it.  That is impossible, chance is a non-entity therefore it has a value of zero.  The argument used to be; enough monkeys with enough typewriters over a long enough time will write all the great sonnets of the world.  That is a mathematical impossibility, and you have even factored in what language.    

I love science; I believe it points me to a creator.  
“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”. Psalm 19:1

These are valid, scientific questions and the believer and non-believer should consider them well. If one day science and engineering proves otherwise I will be greatly disappointed, but I will yield.


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> You're a derisive feller for someone who believes in the magical sky fairy of olden lore =D. Personally I prefer the flying spaghetti monster since presumably his meatbally goodness will make for an awesome eternal feast in the afterlife. Also he doesn't need a creator either since he's the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omniraptor so don't give me that 'something cannot come from nothing' bullcrap. I wonder if the FSM will allow a side of garlic toast or if that would be considered blasphemous...
> 
> The one thing I hate about him is the FSM I know doesn't have a sense of justice.. Even with all those awful sinners and other assorted salad eaters living amongst us he never bothered to create a metaphysical realm of eternal suffering to prop up my delicate sensibilities about how me and my sort are the chosen ones of the FSM, and everyone else is going to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored anyway. So I guess ultimately you get to enjoy his meaty proceeds the same as true believers like myself =(.
> 
> ...



So you do believe something can come from nothing, WOW.
I have said nothing derisive, unlike your post above.

All I have said is that my world view demands a Cause, a First Cause, that is called God which Biblically claims to be eternal.  

You claim that an effect, either caused itself, which violates the definition, or has always been which also violates the definition.

Get a little testy when the break down of your logic gets pointed out.  Then the minions jump in.  

I'd love to discuss His justice one day.  Start it up.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman, the minions want to know where your god came from and why you ignore your own contradictions.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> Ambush,
> 
> I constantly take apart what I believe and put it back together.  I study fossil findings, scientific papers, etc. to see if they fit my world view.
> 
> ...




You say you love science and that it pointed you to a creator and in the next breath you say that the  creator MUST violate the very principles of science you espouse. 

Furthermore, the particular deity you found does all kinds of things that are unscientific.   

Lets talk about HOW you chose the God you chose.  I hardly think that it was a scientific and logical enterprise.  I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but If it goes something like"He moved mountains in my life" I'm afraid that that wont do.

P.S.  The finches and the mammals branched apart in another hall of the museum.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Madman, the minions want to know where your god came from and why you ignore your own contradictions.



It's like saying "internal combustion drives engines but not in my magic car".

That's by no means a sleight.  By "magic" I mean some mystical, supernatural stuff. May as well call it Pixie Dust.  Really, what's the difference?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's like saying "internal combustion drives engines but not in my magic car".
> 
> That's by no means a sleight.  By "magic" I mean some mystical, supernatural stuff. May as well call it Pixie Dust.  Really, what's the difference?


So true.
I've directly asked madman for an answer but have been ignored. He certainly does not have to answer me but I cannot help to think it is because he doesn't like my straight to the point questions that require a straight to the point answer.
After his multiple "something cannot come from nothing" posts he doesn't want to put in print that he thinks his god did. He says nothing is eternal, except of course for his god. And there is the ever popular something had to cause the big bang and even though we cannot know what actually existed one-one millionth of a second before the big bang we are supposed to just jump to a god did it and not just any old god of the tens of thousands of gods, but the very god he worships.
The only proof he offers is some ancient text and ignores the thousands of other ancient texts that came before during and after "his" for the same reasons we reject the one he chooses to believe.
He sees finches and ignores the feathered dinosaurs that arrived before the finches and the millions of branches on the evolutionary tree.
He can't admit that like me, he just does not know and it happy to wait until more information is available.
It is easier to see beauty and ignore the ugly. It is easier to fill in the gaps with a god and in one sentence tell us how complex this god is yet in the next sentence act as if he not only understands this complexity but also speaks for this god.
Without man to write about invisible beings there are no invisible beings.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> So you do believe something can come from nothing, WOW.
> I have said nothing derisive, unlike your post above.
> 
> All I have said is that my world view demands a Cause, a First Cause, that is called God which Biblically claims to be eternal.
> ...



Nope.. I thought I pretty clearly spelled out that _I don't know_ how we got here. I don't have to have an answer for everything we do not yet understand. 

It's strange that we're both accusing the other of 'violating the definition' of cause and effect. I think what it comes down to is I'm not claiming special knowledge, and do not have an answer for how we found ourselves  existing. However you claim to have this knowledge by virtue of a book written millenia ago by people who were largely ignorant of much of what we now know, and violate your own claims about causality while doing it.

The whole basis of your argument is that god doesn't need to be caused by something else because he is the 'first cause'.. you simply exempt him from the argument because the bible says he is eternal.. Why not skip the complication and just assume the universe is eternal until we determine otherwise?



> I'd love to discuss His justice one day.  Start it up.



The whole FSM thing was more tongue in cheek. There is no justice to be found in your god concept if it includes infinite punishment for finite 'sins'. If you think there is room for discussion there go for it =D.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

Anyone heard from Asath lately?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You know I've always contended that if one were inclined to believe in Miracles that one probably doesn't need an explanation for them.  And that, there, is anti intellectual.



OR, is it anti-intellectual to rule them out?

If a man walked on water it would be, by modern standards, miraculous.  The question is, did a man walk on water?  I am ok with that.  You are not.  However, I am also very happy to read about any study in physics which may reduce the miraculous to interesting.  In fact, I would be happy to read about it.

My foundation is faith that God exists.  Science explains creation.  It does not threaten it.  Isn't that what a "real" faith ought be?  One that does not fear discovery?

I don't see the anti-intellectual aspect in that.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> I think your first question is the key..
> I'm coming specifically from the angle of promoting intellectualism strictly from the standpoint of providing information without skewing or leading the one being provided the information in any way. Once their intellectual view is narrowed for example being taught their is one true God then you are not truly promoting intellectualism.
> And by the way in my view promoting intellectualism would include providing information about Christianity  (and Islam and ...) as long as it is not skewed in one direction or another.



I understand.  I just don't see how faith can be an impediment to discovery unless one chooses to make it so.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> ......but it is better to say that than to claim to have personal knowledge of a creator of the universe which you can furnish no proof of.



But, to a believer, you are proof there is a creator.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> OR, is it anti-intellectual to rule them out?
> 
> If a man walked on water it would be, by modern standards, miraculous.  The question is, did a man walk on water?  I am ok with that.  You are not.  However, I am also very happy to read about any study in physics which may reduce the miraculous to interesting.  In fact, I would be happy to read about it.
> 
> ...



Is faith of the kind that you practice anti-intellectual?  What's it based on?  I think I know the reasons and I don't think anyone could call them intellectual or rational without changing the definitions of the words.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think I know the reasons and I don't think anyone could call them intellectual or rational without changing the definitions of the words.



I can't reason existence without a creator.  I think that is an intellectual position.  It's just not your intellectual position.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> Ambush,
> 
> I constantly take apart what I believe and put it back together.  I study fossil findings, scientific papers, etc. to see if they fit my world view.
> 
> ...



http://www.ibtimes.com/how-fish-fin...s-were-there-they-just-had-be-clicked-1545948


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 14, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I can't reason existence without a creator.  I think that is an intellectual position.  It's just not your intellectual position.



But you can reason a creator without a creator.  It's the same thing minus the wierdness of a personality (with no justification for) thrown in.

I wouldn't mind if there were a creator but until there's a GOOD reason for one I'll go with the easiest answer.

I believe you can reason existence without a creator, I know you can, but it interferes with other parts of your worldview.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But you can reason a creator without a creator.



YEs, I reason a beginning.



ambush80 said:


> It's the same thing minus the wierdness of a personality (with no justification for) thrown in.



  If I believe in Jesus, then I have all kind-a justification for the personality part.



ambush80 said:


> I believe you can reason existence without a creator, I know you can, but it interferes with other parts of your worldview.



There are times when I wonder, and ponder, and question.  I keep coming back to certain things which, to me at least, confirm my basic belief in a creator.  

My worldview definitely works better with a God in it.  No need in denying that.  Not sure if it's applicable to the topic, though.


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But you can reason a creator without a creator.  It's the same thing minus the wierdness of a personality (with no justification for) thrown in.
> 
> I wouldn't mind if there were a creator but until there's a GOOD reason for one I'll go with the easiest answer.
> 
> I believe you can reason existence without a creator, I know you can, but it interferes with other parts of your worldview.



I agree, "you can reason existence without a creator".   I can reason a lot of things, I know people who reason that drugs are a good answer to their problems, you can reason an affair would be a good thing, the human mind can reason all sorts of things, but science shows they are not good for those involved.   

Yes, I have the capacity to reason a lot of things, but I do not have the mental capacity to "reason" that information came from nowhere.  Information comes from intelligence.  

You can "reason" an answer so long as it is a natural answer, no room for the super natural, and no room for the logical, information from lack of information, something from nothing.  Those are the scientist I want doing research, the ones without the ability to look beyond the obvious.  The ones who say, I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't god so I'll make up some nonsense.

Sometimes the easiest answer is the one that bit you on the nose, it is easy but it is illogical.

I hate it that I have stepped on you fellows religion but it takes more faith to believe what you believe than me.

The only answer any of you has provided is "I don't know because what I claim to know violates every law of physics, and logic, and if I say I believe in a god then I have something that I am accountable too and that cannot be allowed."

This has been fun.
God's peace fellows.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> The only answer any of you has provided is "I don't know because what I claim to know violates every law of physics, and logic, and if I say I believe in a god then I have something that I am accountable too and that cannot be allowed."



What a bunch of straw-man Malarky. I think you need some work on your reading comprehension my friend.



If curious this is exactly the topic we are discussing in wikipedia form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument


----------



## bullethead (Dec 14, 2015)

Madman said:


> I agree, "you can reason existence without a creator".   I can reason a lot of things, I know people who reason that drugs are a good answer to their problems, you can reason an affair would be a good thing, the human mind can reason all sorts of things, but science shows they are not good for those involved.
> 
> Yes, I have the capacity to reason a lot of things, but I do not have the mental capacity to "reason" that information came from nowhere.  Information comes from intelligence.
> 
> ...


Chock full of assertions without ever even addressing the facts.


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Chock full of assertions without ever even addressing the facts.



All of the facts have been addressed.  

An effect needs a cause, additional information needs intelligence.

You have offered nothing except a couple of webpages you googled.

It's been fun bullethead.


----------



## Madman (Dec 14, 2015)

bullethead said:


> http://www.ibtimes.com/how-fish-fin...s-were-there-they-just-had-be-clicked-1545948



I like that bullet, the amoeba had your brain before you did, all it had to do was turn it on.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2015)

Madman said:


> I agree, "you can reason existence without a creator".   I can reason a lot of things, I know people who reason that drugs are a good answer to their problems, you can reason an affair would be a good thing, the human mind can reason all sorts of things, but science shows they are not good for those involved.
> 
> Yes, I have the capacity to reason a lot of things, but I do not have the mental capacity to "reason" that information came from nowhere.  Information comes from intelligence.
> 
> ...



You make me chuckle.
While you have apparently impressed yourself with technical sounding stuff, I'm a simple guy so I'll put it simply - 
Let's call science, logic and engineering the square peg. Let's call your world view (God ) a round hole.
All you did was take the square peg and twist and pound and change and distort and  pound some more until it fit in the round hole.
And now you are gloating about it and making ridiculous claims.

It's hilarious


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2015)

Madman said:


> I like that bullet, the amoeba had your brain before you did, all it had to do was turn it on.


Welcome to the club fellow amoeba.
But it is clear you cannot understand what you are reading.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 15, 2015)

Madman said:


> All of the facts have been addressed.
> 
> An effect needs a cause, additional information needs intelligence.
> 
> ...



Dont be so quick with your Stanley Roper smirks. You have yet to accomplish the task you have started. For the 5th time what is the cause of your god effect?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> I understand.  I just don't see how faith can be an impediment to discovery unless one chooses to make it so.


OK that's different than what I was talking about.
I agree with you that faith doesn't necessarily impede discovery. 
But I do wonder if it doesn't drastically increase the odds.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that can influence ones thought process the way faith in God can because of its importance in the individuals life.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> But I do wonder if it doesn't drastically increase the odds.
> I can't think of anything off the top of my head that can influence ones thought process the way faith in God can because of its importance in the individuals life.



It is probably the most influential aspect in a person's thought process.  Sure.  But, it doesn't have to be a "science v God" thing.   I am no scientist.  But, if I was, I would pursue my occupation with the same determination that I pursue everything.  It's like this......if God is real, then no amount of scientific discovery threatens his existence.  That being the case, there is nothing to be lost through discovery as far as faith is concerned.

I am not sure how many in the scientific community are believers.  I would assume the % is much greater for those in other societies.  I would hope that a person does not let their faith impact their work........and if they did, how strong is their faith?

"How did God create the heavens and the earth" is a logical question after reading Genesis 1.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> It is probably the most influential aspect in a person's thought process.  Sure.  But, it doesn't have to be a "science v God" thing.   I am no scientist.  But, if I was, I would pursue my occupation with the same determination that I pursue everything.  It's like this......if God is real, then no amount of scientific discovery threatens his existence.  That being the case, there is nothing to be lost through discovery as far as faith is concerned.
> 
> I am not sure how many in the scientific community are believers.  I would assume the % is much greater for those in other societies.  I would hope that a person does not let their faith impact their work........and if they did, how strong is their faith?
> 
> "How did God create the heavens and the earth" is a logical question after reading Genesis 1.




I had a discussion with my Mom recently similar to this thread.  She saw a book I was reading and asked me about Multiverses.

I told her that they are theoretical based on some things that have been measured and some things that have been calculated.  I told her about how astronomers calculated the existence of the planet Neptune before the technology was available to actually see it.  Imagine that.  Guys in tights and big floppy hats said "On such and such a date on such and such a time, if you look over there, there will be a planet of such and such a size."  And they were right.  Isn't that amazing?  Scientists sometimes get things a little wrong and then they have to add to their theories.  Sometimes they're completely wrong.  Often they're astoundingly right.

No matter how much we discover about the nature of reality one can still say "God did it" if they want,  for whatever reason they want, in the same way that someone can say that a tsunami is caused by the God Neptune's flatulence.  We may know what causes tsunamis in terms of the physical world but if someone wants to talk about the metaphysical causes of a tsunami (angered gods on Mount Olympus and flatulence) then that's just the way it's gonna be for them.  


Here's the thing I don't get.  I would guess that 99% of the people who regularly contribute to the discussions here have some knowledge about the many Gods from antiquity that were given credit for all the various natural phenomena.  Two very interesting points to consider:  1. Why were the Gods always some version of a being; Wolf, human, half-human, bird, humanoid?  2. look how many of them were shelved and look at the ones that remain.  Eskimos and Amazon Indians still have animal and forest Gods and Westerners kept a humanoid God.  Why?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Finally to my point.  No matter how much we discover about the nature of reality one can still say "God did it" if they want,  for whatever reason they want.    In the same way that someone can say that a tsunami is caused by the God Neptune's flatulence.  We may know what causes tsunamis in terms of the physical world but if someone wants to talk about the metaphysical causes of a tsunami (angered gods on Mount Olympus and flatulence) then that's just the way it's gonna be for them.



Doesnt' scientific discovery rule out flatulence?  I am saying science discovers the hows.  What's left for debate is the whys (if a why even exists, and it only exists if there is a creator, that's the implied purpose given by belief).  I believe God dun it.  You don't.  From there we will have a discussion of reason and logic and neither of us will win the day.  




ambush80 said:


> Eskimos and Amazon Indians still have animal and forest Gods and Westerners kept a humanoid God.  Why?



Is there a conceptual difference, or are they putting a face, or many faces, on a concept?  I think the greater question is why they all believed in God.........


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> It is probably the most influential aspect in a person's thought process.  Sure.  But, it doesn't have to be a "science v God" thing.   I am no scientist.  But, if I was, I would pursue my occupation with the same determination that I pursue everything.  It's like this......if God is real, then no amount of scientific discovery threatens his existence.  That being the case, there is nothing to be lost through discovery as far as faith is concerned.
> 
> I am not sure how many in the scientific community are believers.  I would assume the % is much greater for those in other societies.  I would hope that a person does not let their faith impact their work........and if they did, how strong is their faith?
> 
> "How did God create the heavens and the earth" is a logical question after reading Genesis 1.



Real science will always point toward the creator. Science, as is presently perverted, does not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Real science will always point toward the creator. Science, as is presently perverted, does not.



When you say creator with a small c, do you mean something,, anything, that created or did you mean Creator as in the Christian God?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Doesnt' scientific discovery rule out flatulence?  I am saying science discovers the hows.  What's left for debate is the whys (if a why even exists, and it only exists if there is a creator, that's the implied purpose given by belief).  I believe God dun it.  You don't.  From there we will have a discussion of reason and logic and neither of us will win the day.



It doesn't rule out metaphysical flatulence.  When you start talking about the netherworld and miracles the door is flung wide, wide open to any and all bizarre explanations.

It think the "Why" feeds into the question below.  If you didn't have a why or said I don't know why, what would be the result in a real world scenario?  Would you become a berzerking maniac? Is the sense that "someone" has told you what to do and how to do it the only thing that makes you a good guy?  I don't think it is at all.  




JB0704 said:


> Is there a conceptual difference, or are they putting a face, or many faces, on a concept?  I think the greater question is why they all believed in God.........



That's one of my favorite questions "Why do people like to believe in Gods?"  There's alot of research being done on that.  But even if they isolate a region of the brain or an amino acid that is responsible for the desire to believe in God and are able to remove it and it makes the desire go away, there will people who will still want to believe in the traditional concept of God.
Perhaps there will be less believers.  Perhaps there will be a movement against such research.  Perhaps that's where the revulsion to Science by the Faith Based community stems from.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Real science will always point toward the creator. Science, as is presently perverted, does not.




Listen to yourself.  That's not being very scientific.  What you're saying is that if it points away from a creator then it's not science.  

A scientist; a rational person,  will accept the results no matter where they point to.  When God speaks to me through a scientific method I will believe.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 15, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Doesnt' scientific discovery rule out flatulence?


No, nor can it.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Listen to yourself.  That's not being very scientific.  What you're saying is that if it points away from a creator then it's not science.



Why do you place such a high premium on being 'scientific'? What is it you gain, or lose?



ambush80 said:


> A scientist; a rational person,  will accept the results no matter where they point to.  When God speaks to me through a scientific method I will believe.



I would like to believe the white part, but I have been shown otherwise.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do you place such a high premium on being 'scientific'? What is it you gain, or lose?



If you didn't know why the Sun revolved around the Earth, what would be the best way to figure out how? See what I did there? Would you rely on a religious mythology (any of them, take your pick) to give you the answer?



EverGreen1231 said:


> I would like to believe the white part, but I have been shown otherwise.



By who?  Can you give an example?  Who do you know that has done something bad because of their untrammeled rationality.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> No, nor can it.



I wouldn't dare to try to discredit Neptune's Flatulence with science.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do you place such a high premium on being 'scientific'? What is it you gain, or lose?



Because following a scientific process eliminates many of the biases that we have as people. The number of logical fallacies that we fall victim to if we do not follow a rigorous process of experimentation to attain unbiased results is astounding. Scientists are people and are not perfect, but the scientific process has been proven time and time again as evidenced by the incredible advancements in both understanding of how the world works and our technological capabilities. All of this may not necessarily be a good thing.. for example Nuclear Weapons may eventually be our downfall. However if our goal is attainment of knowledge then it works extremely well if frustratingly slowly for people who want the answers to everything yesterday, or believe that the questions that are being explored using the scientific method had been settled thousands of years ago by middle-eastern goatherds.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> If you didn't know why the Sun revolved around the Earth, what would be the best way to figure out how? See what I did there? Would you rely on a religious mythology (any of them, take your pick) to give you the answer?



Why do you care if the earth revolves around the sun?



> By who?  Can you give an example?  Who do you know that has done something bad because of their untrammeled rationality.



Nazi's. Their idea of race superiority was very rational to them.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Because following a scientific process eliminates many of the biases that we have as people. The number of logical fallacies that we fall victim to if we do not follow a rigorous process of experimentation to attain unbiased results is astounding. Scientists are people and are not perfect, but the scientific process has been proven time and time again as evidenced by the incredible advancements in both understanding of how the world works and our technological capabilities. All of this may not necessarily be a good thing.. for example Nuclear Weapons may eventually be our downfall. However if our goal is attainment of knowledge then it works extremely well if frustratingly slowly for people who want the answers to everything yesterday, or believe that the questions that are being explored using the scientific method had been settled thousands of years ago by middle-eastern goatherds.



Can't rule out that they might have guessed right.  

The blind squirrel and the acorn story comes to mind.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Nazi's. Their idea of race superiority was very rational to them.



Nothing to do with science. We go with science because "Cause I said so", doesn't cut it with most folks and Hitler was famous for that. Much like any ruler whether real or made up. We should get other views and test and studies and not go with just, "cause I say so". 

That is why science is important. The minute someone makes a discovery, hundreds or thousands of folks try to prove them wrong. Almost as much fun to them as making a discovery is proving another wrong.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do you care if the earth revolves around the sun?



If there is a creator, why have us revolve at all? Why have us spin on an axis? Why do we have to eat? Why put a playground next to a sewage treatment plant? Why do we have to breath oxygen? Did God? 

Wouldn't the inability to explain how we work, or anything work, be testament to a creator. The earth lights up, all at one time, no light source detected. Strange...miracle even.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Because following a scientific process eliminates many of the biases that we have as people. The number of logical fallacies that we fall victim to if we do not follow a rigorous process of experimentation to attain unbiased results is astounding. Scientists are people and are not perfect, but the scientific process has been proven time and time again as evidenced by the incredible advancements in both understanding of how the world works and our technological capabilities. All of this may not necessarily be a good thing.. for example Nuclear Weapons may eventually be our downfall. However if our goal is attainment of knowledge then it works extremely well if frustratingly slowly for people who want the answers to everything yesterday, or believe that the questions that are being explored using the scientific method had been settled thousands of years ago by middle-eastern goatherds.



Before Einstein (actually, before Hubble), the scientific community saw the universe as something that always was and always will be: static and unchanging. Then both the radiation and red shift were discovered, leading to the realization of a Universe that's expanding. This lead to the idea that the Universe was once a singularity that sprang into existence from what seems to be nothing. This is the modern cosmological idea of what happened in early time.

Now, read Genesis (i.e. thousand year old text written by a middle-eastern goat herder) and tell me, in any terms you like, how it doesn't fit the description above.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

660griz said:


> Nothing to do with science. We go with science because "Cause I said so", doesn't cut it with most folks and Hitler was famous for that. Much like any ruler whether real or made up. We should get other views and test and studies and not go with just, "cause I say so".



Why did Hitler say so?



> That is why science is important. The minute someone makes a discovery, hundreds or thousands of folks try to prove them wrong. Almost as much fun to them as making a discovery is proving another wrong.



That depends upon the discovery.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why did Hitler say so?


 Power most likely.


> That depends upon the discovery.


Example?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

> Example?



The Big Bang


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Why do you care if the earth revolves around the sun?
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's. Their idea of race superiority was very rational to them.




But is it rational?  Can a case be made with reason to support their views?

_ra·tion·al
ËˆraSH(É™)n(É™)l/
adjective
adjective: rational

    1.
    based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
    "I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
    synonyms:	logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent;_

Why did Hitler hate the Jews?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The Big Bang



No one agrees on what happened.  There are theories that range from "cosmic vibration" to "In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent)."

How did these theories come to be?  How can they be tested?  Is it possible that they're wrong or a little right?  Why?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> But is it rational?  Can a case be made with reason to support their views?
> 
> _ra·tion·al
> ËˆraSH(É™)n(É™)l/
> ...



They killed Jesus, and for that he viewed them as inferior. He also felt, through some indoctrination, that the human race could be purified and that any and all impurities must be eradicated. It's a very rational thought: Take the bad away from the good to make it better.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> No one agrees on what happened.  There are theories that range from "cosmic vibration" to "In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent)."
> 
> How did these theories come to be?  How can they be tested?  Is it possible that they're wrong or a little right?  Why?



No one agrees on much of anything; however, there is such thing as consensus, and that is "we cannot allow a Devine Foot through the door."


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> They killed Jesus, and for that he viewed them as inferior. He also felt, through some indoctrination, that the human race could be purified and that any and all impurities must be eradicated. It's a very rational thought: Take the bad away from the good to make it better.



Your first line took it completely out of the realm of rationality. You're giving credence to the people that shot up Charlie Hebdo.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> No one agrees on much of anything; however, there is such thing as consensus, and that is "we cannot allow a Devine Foot through the door."



Absolutely not true.  Show Richard Dawkins good evidence of God and he will believe.  That's all anyone wants.  Good evidence.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Absolutely not true.  Show Richard Dawkins good evidence of God and he will believe.  That's all anyone wants.  Good evidence.



And now things come full circle...
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860207

and this would also apply...
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860212


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Your first line took it completely out of the realm of rationality. You're giving credence to the people that shot up Charlie Hebdo.



I don't accept the Nazi teachings that the Jews were or are inferior, I was simply stating a fact about the regime. That's not irrational, in this case.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> And now things come full circle...
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860207
> 
> and this would also apply...
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=860212



Sorry, I don't understand your point.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> I don't accept the Nazi teachings that the Jews were or are inferior, I was simply stating a fact about the regime. That's not irrational, in this case.




I think at this point you should consider that you might be redefining the word rational.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> They killed Jesus, and for that he viewed them as inferior.



Uh no. Hitler blamed the Jews for all the economic struggles past, and present. He also blamed them for the loss of WWI. 
There was the race purity thing but, that included lots more folks than just jews.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Sorry, I don't understand your point.



You wanted 'good evidence' (whatever that is), I pointed you back to the thread where the origin of 'good' was being discussed (sorta).

There's also a thread discussing the inability of the 'laymen' to understand a very simple answer to a very simple question because he, in the mind of Feynman, didn't have the required knowledge to understand. I would say that, even if 'good evidence' (by your definition) presented itself, a similar situation would occur.




ambush80 said:


> I think at this point you should consider that you might be redefining the word rational.



No redefinition... it fits what you posted perfectly.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> You wanted 'good evidence' (whatever that is), I pointed you back to the thread where the origin of 'good' was being discussed (sorta).
> 
> There's also a thread discussing the inability of the 'laymen' to understand a very simple answer to a very simple question because he, in the mind of Feynman, didn't have the required knowledge to understand. I would say that, even if 'good evidence' (by your definition) presented itself, a similar situation would occur.
> 
> ...



OK.  I'll give you an example of good evidence for me and tell me if you agree that it is or not.  God (in Jesus form) shows up at my place of work in front of lots of people, some with cell phone cameras running and does some miracle.  Walking on water would be fine.

Is that good evidence?


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 16, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> OK.  I'll give you an example of good evidence for me and tell me if you agree that it is or not.  God (in Jesus form) shows up at my place of work in front of lots of people, some with cell phone cameras running and does some miracle.  Walking on water would be fine.
> 
> Is that good evidence?



Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe.



The greatest trick religions ever played was convincing people that it was a virtue to believe without proof. It's a con man's wet dream really.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe.




Well, I guess if you're not blessed then you're out of luck.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 16, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> The greatest trick religions ever played was convincing people that it was a virtue to believe without proof. It's a con man's wet dream really.




I often imagine how it must have been to write the Bible.  I suppose after the 1,500 years it took to write that they had heard every argument questioning the veracity of its divinity and had plenty of time to deflect.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 16, 2015)

EverGreen1231 said:


> Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe.



Hogwash


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Hogwash




You have to admit they come up with some snappy sayings though.
Not a shred of proof behind them but snappy none the less.
Could make a killing in the advertising field.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 16, 2015)

WaltL1 said:


> You have to admit they come up with some snappy sayings though.
> Not a shred of proof behind them but snappy none the less.
> Could make a killing in the advertising field.




"Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe."

What? Blessed are they whom having not seen Jesus, his works or teachings, when he walked in Gallilee and Juda, and yet believe for the witness of others concerning Jesus.

What?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> "Blessed are they whom, having not seen him, believe."
> 
> What? Blessed are they whom having not seen Jesus, his works or teachings, when he walked in Gallilee and Juda, and yet believe for the witness of others concerning Jesus.
> 
> What?


The more you add the better it gets. Thank you.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 16, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The more you add the better it gets. Thank you.



Here in the south when someone says, "Well bless your heart", what they really mean is, "I believe you may be soft in the head."  

Maybe that's what "blessed are they who, never have seen, still believe" means.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 16, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Here in the south when someone says, "Well bless your heart", what they really mean is, "I believe you may be soft in the head."
> 
> Maybe that's what "blessed are they who, never have seen, still believe" means.



Too much DR, lololol too much man.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 17, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Here in the south when someone says, "Well bless your heart", what they really mean is, "I believe you may be soft in the head."
> 
> Maybe that's what "blessed are they who, never have seen, still believe" means.



I am glad you brought it up. I got scared.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 17, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Too much DR, lololol too much man.



Unless we are discussing Sasquatch. I've never seen one, but they are real!  Believe it.


----------



## Israel (Dec 17, 2015)

The believer finds it fitting that he is not equipped to unequivocally prove to the satisfaction of man's intellect the reality of "a" god. For he knows, of himself, he is unable to satisfy all that his own intellect requires in that regard. As this leads him to a personal dependence, he is also well aware in his dealings "among men" as his own trust in his intellect is shown the frail thing it is, that to make any appeal from that...to that...is fruitless.

Again, the making of a book notwithstanding; he has, and is learning the supreme nature of the spiritual reality of Christ is not merely "more" than believing "there is a god", but all that is that which that is not.

Because many of you claim a present knowledge, and even some a former participation in and of things biblical, religious, even christian, you are, no doubt, familiar with this scripture:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The believing that he is can never be separated from what follows. I can easily assent to the knowledge China exists, and such may not at all produce any desire in me to go there and "know of it". My intellect is quite satisfied in the knowing of a thing apart from the experience of it. In truth, that's all that satisfies my intellect, the knowing.

Now, were my very being threatened in such a peril as to understand were I not to go to China with all whom I know and love, and that none would survive, suddenly many more things "about China"...routes, customs (if I am to survive successfully), language...would take on a new import. 

First and foremost is the believers declaration there is no safe place but in God, and Jesus is the only way there.

Of course the believer has learned "this is folly to any who are not being made aware of a peril they cannot fathom, an abyss they do not perceive" most usually because he has learned from his "own" intellect, and in conjunction with its need to be served, that he too has neglected (with consequences) that form of instruction that subjects it to another...and not merely his own approval.

The intellect being made subject is in its deliverance into the place of its excruciating suffering where "it" does not know. And because the intellect can never go there, of itself, it must be led as subject, by another, more powerful, whose preeminence must be real in a place over the intellect, a place it does not, cannot, rule, of itself. The acknowledging of this reality, of a thing not subject to intellect, but able to subject it for it is before intellect and therefore preeminent is manifest to and in the believer. Spirit.

The believer lives by this faith...found in the Son of God, Jesus Christ...who came, not to "just" have men believe there is a God, but in the reason of that true God, to make of men friends, and brothers. And sons. In truth.

Jesus success at this is revealed as God alone, in what is called his foolishness that is greater than man's wisdom, can accomplish. No man can birth a brother, but he may serve as mid wife. Yes, he rewards those who diligently seek him, as evidenced through Jesus Christ. The bringer of many sons to glory.

Jesus wants friends of men, and has them. And he does not despise the intellectual nor does he prefer one over another.
He is exceedingly happy in any and all the Father has given him.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 17, 2015)

Or...... The early church, as now, had no answer for, "where's the beef?"  So answers had to be given that were non refutable.


----------



## Asath (Dec 18, 2015)

Ye Gads!  Of course Jesus wouldn’t want you to be an intellectual.  The whole story starts with the Aesop’s Fables-worthy tale of that Adam and Eve couple, having been CREATED in GOD’S image, messing things up for all of us for all time for the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge.  (They didn’t have public libraries yet, so knowledge grew on trees – it says so.)  The Good Book, (which you shouldn’t read, because if knowledge is the original sin, then reading it is just compounding that error, and because knowledge is sin there can’t be any in that Book, because that would be rather a contradiction), isn’t all that specific about just what sort of knowledge Adam and Eve gained by eating from that particular tree.  Maybe they learned how to remove stubborn stains from satin sheets.  Presumably there were other trees that they were allowed to eat from, else they’d have starved, but clearly this God fella wasn’t pleased that they chose to eat from this one in particular, and that was pretty much it for the rest of us from there on down.  So pronounces the KJV and my local voice-box preacher, and if you don’t agree, well, you might be a closet Unitarian, and we don’t cotton to those sorts of folks.  Look around.  They drive Japanese cars and there isn’t a single one of them in the Rotary Club.

          Actual intellectuals, the ones who’ve made the pilgrimage to the Creationist Museum, and read the captions, know better.  All of mankind was created last Wednesday, at noon, but only after one failed attempt, which was just a Beta version, and didn’t really count.  That whole ‘Seven Days of Creation’ thing?  It really happened that way.  That much is fully proven, and can brook no questions.  Problem was, around about day 300 or so, (time was just invented, and hadn’t had the bugs worked out, so sometimes a years lasted five days, and sometimes 960 years happened in only forty years), so it might have been day 340, or day 3400, nobody knows – anyway, at some point after those really cool seven days when the whole universe was just one rocking place, popping into being left and right, God looked at his Humanity that He’d created, and said – ‘Yikes.  THAT doesn’t work. Do-Over.’  So he drowned them all, declared a mulligan, and took one stroke off his score for the round.  It says so, right in that Book of (illicit) Knowledge.

          ‘Knowledge?’ He said, ‘Ha!  TAKE THAT, ya fools!’  God was a notorious prank player back then.  He almost got a fella to stab his own son to death before letting him in on the joke at the last second.  What a kidder!  And even after the do-over He didn’t seem all that happy with his work, what with smiting those darned Egyptians left and right and raining fire and plagues and frogs and pestilence all over the place.  Kind of a petulant fella, but not without a sense of humor.  That whole talking donkey thing is a knee-slapper – only a God could quite literally talk out of his A##. 

          Then Jesus came along, or so some say, and started talking all peaceful and understanding and stuff, when he wasn’t throwing temper tantrums, and tossing over bankers and being wholly intolerant and declaring himself to be the sword of divine justice.  That didn’t work out so well for him, or so the story goes.  Nobody really knows, since the first of these stories wasn’t written down until a full lifetime later.  Jesus, himself, didn’t write a word.  What?  This is a surprise?  Knowledge was forbidden at the very beginning of the story.  Of COURSE Jesus couldn’t write.  That would have messed up the entire thing.

          Think about it.  Be empathetic here.  Put yourself in God’s place.  Here’s a supernatural Being able to wink an entire universe into existence, and one who went on the Official Record right up front as firmly against knowledge.  Eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and that’s all for you – banished forever from Eden.  This was the Original Sin.  Now, He could hardly put his very own Son on Earth, and make him a posturing, tweed-coated, pipe-smoking intellectual, now could he?  Not after all that.  That would have messed up his street cred something awful. Plus Jesus would have had to trim the beard to meet faculty standards, and that wouldn’t have played so well in Jerusalem back then (literally ‘jeru salaam’ – the City of Peace).  It would have been just plain awkward. 

          The whole darned game is based on preventing intellectuals.  It hasn’t worked so well in that regard either, but at least we intellectual types get a title – Heretic. 

          No.  Wait.  The story is that Jesus was executed for being a heretic, and not believing the popular notions of his day.  Oops.  Isn’t that the definition of an intellectual?  One who thinks beyond the popular nonsense, challenges the status quo, asks the hard questions, and is punished and often killed in exchange?  Maybe there is a tale here after all – just not the one that built your own particular church . . .

           Now THAT is awkward.  Was the mythological Jesus nothing more than a metaphor, legitimizing the intellectuals who challenged the system as it existed?  Taken as a political prisoner and executed for daring to face down the authorities and spread ideas that were threatening to an authoritative, totalitarian system?  A person who may have  never existed, actually, but who did, figuratively, wrapping together in legend all the people who stood for the personal freedom to think and act as one sees as right and met the same fate?  A lesson?  Certainly.  A compelling philosophy?  No questions.  A God?  Be serious.

          Don’t over-think it.  If there WAS a Jesus, he was already an intellectual.  It was his Dad who had some serious apologizing to do . . .


----------



## Israel (Dec 18, 2015)

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


----------



## Israel (Dec 18, 2015)

Can Einstein be friends with the janitor? Can Einstein be friend at all...or janitor for that matter?

The clever man is always about chess, what will my move provoke in his move, so is there a move that will leave him with no tactical response, or better, draw him into one of which I can take advantage?
Many fights have been won or lost at the weigh in.

Can the fight ever be beaten out of a man?
What if the whole of the paradigm is wrong...winning is actually losing? 

Struggling to ascend as top dog...still leaves one at best, on top, but still a dog?
If I tear at you, I only wound myself.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 18, 2015)

Fairy tales and fables have been used for 1000s of years to teach lessons and in some cases scare children into doing the right thing. Long ago going into the woods was a dangerous endevour. Little Red Riding Hood learned that the hard way. The wolf eats her and her grandmother. That's certainly plausible. Then along comes the Huntsman and cuts open the wolf, releasing both whole and unharmed. We understand that OBVIOUSLY didn't happen.


----------



## Israel (Dec 19, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Fairy tales and fables have been used for 1000s of years to teach lessons and in some cases scare children into doing the right thing. Long ago going into the woods was a dangerous endevour. Little Red Riding Hood learned that the hard way. The wolf eats her and her grandmother. That's certainly plausible. Then along comes the Huntsman and cuts open the wolf, releasing both whole and unharmed. We understand that OBVIOUSLY didn't happen.


We are all "in the woods"...in the thick of it. 

How, and with what, one builds with here is making all the difference.


----------



## Asath (Dec 19, 2015)

“It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”   Thanks for the clarification.  We already knew that part of the fable.  But if they didn’t already know the difference, then which part of the ‘knowledge’ was the problem?  What was the ‘original sin,’ that got them kicked out of Xanadu?  ‘Good’ is hardly a state of perfect, child-like innocence.  Not if you’ve ever had a three-year-old, anyway.  The ‘good’ lion eats the ‘innocent’ lamb, because it is hungry and nobody told it that the lamb hardly deserved that fate.  If ‘evil’ is not defined, and is perpetually re-defined, it seems, one can hardly avoid it.  Good is taught, not innate, as is evil, and both are situational constructs  -- “No, honey, you can’t put the dog’s tail in the window fan to see what will happen, that is bad;”  . . . “Yes dear, I know your little brother ate the last Pop-Tart, but you can’t try to drown him in the bathtub, that is bad;” . . . “Yeah, I know what it says, but they flew a plane into the Pentagon, and we’re going to kill all of them.”  It seems, at these moments, that the various Bibles are just another Book of nonsense tales in a world filled with such books.  Read your own carefully, then read everyone else’s.  ‘Holy’ books all have something in common – vagueness, strident authoritative pronouncements, and a rationalization for just about anything, good or evil.  In yours, Jesus tells the slaves to obey their masters.  And you might notice that the ‘Chosen’ in that Book you hold so closely didn’t include you.  It is very specific about that point.  Re-writing it a few hundred times hasn’t done much to change the basic message – all you folks did was revise it so that it kinda looked like it DID include you, and only you.  It was everyone ELSE that was porked.  

     You’ll pardon us if our original question remains.  Adam took one bite of that knowledge of good and evil and immediately said , “ Dang!  Woman!  Put some clothes on!  You’re indecent and an abomination unto your God!?”  And before that ‘knowledge.’ Everything was jake?  Um?  Sorry kids – your slip is showing.  If your version of a ‘morality’ handed down and etched in God-provided stone was right, then the rest of God’s critters didn’t get the same memo.  And if it was right, and irrefutable, then Lot was in perfect harmony with God and morality after his wife got turned into a salt lick and he went on, grief-stricken, and had many children, by his daughters.  It’s your Book, after all, not mine.  I’m more a fan of non-fiction.  Particle physicists hardly ever ask anyone to make them saints and build them cathedrals.            

     I’ve read thousands of books, and even the worst of them don’t contradict themselves at every turn.  Try this: Leviticus 11:10 “Of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.”  I’m good with part of that – sushi is just plain nasty.  But then later on Jesus himself starts handing out loaves and fishes.  C’mon fellas.  Stoned Brown University students are more consistent than that.  At least until they get a job.  And the darned Book is fairly filled with things like that.  First something is wrong, then it is right, then it is wrong again.  Try reading just the whole Book of Proverbs in one sitting without a glass of whiskey at hand. All you can say is, ‘Wait a minute – didn’t you just say the exact opposite just a few paragraphs ago?’  Knowledge and wisdom is good.  No, hang on – knowledge and wisdom is bad.  Wait – this just in – knowledge and wisdom is good . . . No wonder Noah ended up being a drunk.  Where did I put that sacramental wine?  And he didn’t even have to deal with the New Testament yet.

     Hardly a chess game.  A fool’s game, certainly, which leaves otherwise intelligent, reasonable people with all the ammunition they have manufactured for themselves to perpetuate the endless conflicts which far predate any and all of their various ‘Books.’               

      But without knowledge of evil, as well as knowledge of good, there is nothing at all to prevent one from wiping out whole cities with fire and brimstone, or turning folks into pillars of salt, or drowning just about every living thing on Earth as an object lesson, for example.  It would be anarchy and dictatorship.  Oh.  Darn.  I forgot.  The Book self describes as the ‘Good’ book.  So those things must be ‘good,’ since that is exactly what it prescribes.  But only for the ‘non-believers.’  Whew.  That was close.  Thank goodness I’m on the right side, and have declared myself to be a (fill in the blank).    

     Certainly something to build with.  So which is it?  Knowledge, or religion?  Intellectualism, or ancient tribal superstition?


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2015)

> Intellectualism, or ancient tribal superstition?



neither

but your take on tribalism is a start.

If you doubt intellectuals pound their chests, there's a mirror somewhere.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> We are all "in the woods"...in the thick of it.
> 
> How, and with what, one builds with here is making all the difference.



Talking about the woods. I was reading a want add on an internet hunting site this morning. It reads:



"Any one have begals for sale ? Dont matter the age just has to hunt Call..."

I got to thinking. The art of good "begal" rabbit hunting is to shoot them all in the head or to aim a few inches above the head where one or two pellets from the spray are bound to break bone and sink it leaving the leadless rest intact for the pot. Talking about the context of woods, that is.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 20, 2015)

Asath said:


> “It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”   Thanks for the clarification.  We already knew that part of the fable.  But if they didn’t already know the difference, then which part of the ‘knowledge’ was the problem?  What was the ‘original sin,’ that got them kicked out of Xanadu?  ‘Good’ is hardly a state of perfect, child-like innocence.  Not if you’ve ever had a three-year-old, anyway.  The ‘good’ lion eats the ‘innocent’ lamb, because it is hungry and nobody told it that the lamb hardly deserved that fate.  If ‘evil’ is not defined, and is perpetually re-defined, it seems, one can hardly avoid it.  Good is taught, not innate, as is evil, and both are situational constructs  -- “No, honey, you can’t put the dog’s tail in the window fan to see what will happen, that is bad;”  . . . “Yes dear, I know your little brother ate the last Pop-Tart, but you can’t try to drown him in the bathtub, that is bad;” . . . “Yeah, I know what it says, but they flew a plane into the Pentagon, and we’re going to kill all of them.”  It seems, at these moments, that the various Bibles are just another Book of nonsense tales in a world filled with such books.  Read your own carefully, then read everyone else’s.  ‘Holy’ books all have something in common – vagueness, strident authoritative pronouncements, and a rationalization for just about anything, good or evil.  In yours, Jesus tells the slaves to obey their masters.  And you might notice that the ‘Chosen’ in that Book you hold so closely didn’t include you.  It is very specific about that point.  Re-writing it a few hundred times hasn’t done much to change the basic message – all you folks did was revise it so that it kinda looked like it DID include you, and only you.  It was everyone ELSE that was porked.
> 
> You’ll pardon us if our original question remains.  Adam took one bite of that knowledge of good and evil and immediately said , “ Dang!  Woman!  Put some clothes on!  You’re indecent and an abomination unto your God!?”  And before that ‘knowledge.’ Everything was jake?  Um?  Sorry kids – your slip is showing.  If your version of a ‘morality’ handed down and etched in God-provided stone was right, then the rest of God’s critters didn’t get the same memo.  And if it was right, and irrefutable, then Lot was in perfect harmony with God and morality after his wife got turned into a salt lick and he went on, grief-stricken, and had many children, by his daughters.  It’s your Book, after all, not mine.  I’m more a fan of non-fiction.  Particle physicists hardly ever ask anyone to make them saints and build them cathedrals.
> 
> ...




"No, hang on – knowledge and wisdom is bad. Wait – this just in – knowledge and wisdom is good . . . No wonder Noah ended up being a drunk."

Exactly! That's it!  Your on the same page in genesis as when is says "Hey! Them apples are going to make you toxic."

Excellent happy accident I think. Awesome!

 And "You’ll pardon us if our original question remains." Who is us? Names?


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Talking about the woods. I was reading a want add on an internet hunting site this morning. It reads:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You speak of an accurate huntsman.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 20, 2015)

Israel said:


> You speak of an accurate huntsman.



Yes definitely. A huntsman " sure shot"  not unlike as in Zephaniah, 3:16 


16 In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> "No, hang on – knowledge and wisdom is bad. Wait – this just in – knowledge and wisdom is good . . . No wonder Noah ended up being a drunk."
> 
> Exactly! That's it!  Your on the same page in genesis as when is says "Hey! Them apples are going to make you toxic."
> 
> ...



Add me to the "names".


----------



## Israel (Dec 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Add me to the "names".


If you have or have had a wife, do your anniversary gifts to her say "From one set of self knowing chemicals to another"?

And how then, could you ever be sure, are you(?) that you are not Larry? Or Timothy? or Leslie...or Beth? Who is the "me" saying "add me to the "names"?
You still "look" like Bullet to me, even sound (perhaps only to me) like him, at least in some form of presently perceived continuity...by me.
And yet...all is subject to change.
Will you know me? And I, you? Or, maybe we'll really then see each other?
And not like trees, walking.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> If you have or have had a wife, do your anniversary gifts to her say "From one set of self knowing chemicals to another"?
> 
> And how then, could you ever be sure, are you(?) that you are not Larry? Or Timothy? or Leslie...or Beth? Who is the "me" saying "add me to the "names"?
> You still "look" like Bullet to me, even sound (perhaps only to me) like him, at least in some form of presently perceived continuity...by me.
> ...


What is this?  Do you get pride out of typing mumbo jumbo?  Is it ego?  Do you only talk like this to those with which you disagree?  Why?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

Israel said:


> If you have or have had a wife, do your anniversary gifts to her say "From one set of self knowing chemicals to another"?
> 
> And how then, could you ever be sure, are you(?) that you are not Larry? Or Timothy? or Leslie...or Beth? Who is the "me" saying "add me to the "names"?
> You still "look" like Bullet to me, even sound (perhaps only to me) like him, at least in some form of presently perceived continuity...by me.
> ...



I am married 26yrs therefore I go by whatever I'm called.

I cannot definitively accurately answer all that other stuff you have written anymore than you can Isreal, if THAT is you.

More to the actual point instead of dwelling on all this stuff meant to deflect from the original answer,
Gordon2 asked who is us? Names? In reference to Asaths comment.
And I am certainly included into the "US", as I am definitely a member of the want know gang.


----------



## Israel (Dec 21, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> What is this?  Do you get pride out of typing mumbo jumbo?  Is it ego?  Do you only talk like this to those with which you disagree?  Why?



projection is not an offense, it's all we have till we see the mirror.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 21, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> What is this?  Do you get pride out of typing mumbo jumbo?  Is it ego?  Do you only talk like this to those with which you disagree?  Why?




Nope he talks like this to everyone...  His mumbo jumbo is really a "tongue in cheek" speak , a jaw jab of sorts, an off the cuff articulation and really easy when you know to interpret  as in from one chemistry set  decoded by another.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Nope he talks like this to everyone...  His mumbo jumbo is really a "tongue in cheek" speak , a jaw jab of sorts, an off the cuff articulation and really easy when you know to interpret  as in from one chemistry set  decoded by another.


Aww tell the truth, god chose you to be more able to understand the banter better. Others have not been so enlightened.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Aww tell the truth, god chose you to be more able to understand the banter better. Others have not been so enlightened.



LOL.... 


Nope this guy and American litt. classes back in the 70s. 



“You cannot swim for new horizons until you have courage to lose sight of the shore.” 
― William Faulkner

In order to understand Isreal, one must realize that his soul swims off shore and  on the surface of the sea,  below in the depths and above in the air. He is a flying fish... and a smart one.

Or he is as a banjo player musician in the style of Roscoe Holcomb, having invented unfamiliar sounds and furies to say his peace, a hummer of cut diamonds. 

All good.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 21, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> LOL....
> 
> 
> Nope this guy and American litt. classes back in the 70s.
> ...



Or this guy sums it up well:
"His posts are like a Pacman with a never ending appetite to feed on bandwith dots"
~bullethead


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 21, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Or this guy sums it up well:
> "His posts are like a Pacman with a never ending appetite to feed on bandwith dots"
> ~bullethead



Or it's just jibberish.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 21, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Or it's just jibberish.



I think that's harsh.

I can sometimes tell what he's trying to say (I think).  I just don't know why it has to be so cryptic.  The same thing could be said in plain language.  It's distracting and actually detracts from the message.

I think it might be an homage to the cryptic language of the Bible.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 22, 2015)

Asath said:


> I’ve read thousands of books, and even the worst of them don’t contradict themselves at every turn.  Try this: Leviticus 11:10 “Of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.”  I’m good with part of that – sushi is just plain nasty.  But then later on Jesus himself starts handing out loaves and fishes.


It is safe to say that in the thousands of books you've read, none of them addressed the problem of stupid assumptions. The assumed contradiction only exposes your lack of information... or intelligence.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 22, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> The assumed contradiction only exposes your lack of information... or intelligence.



Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 22, 2015)

660griz said:


> Merry Christmas to you too.


Thanks. Tell your cat "Hi" for me.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 22, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I think it might be an homage to the cryptic language of the Bible.



Maybe.  The King Jimmy always had me trying to dig deeper, then when the pure was found, I realized the gospel wasn't neccessarily affected by one translation or another.   I just kept finding Treasure no matter if it was NASB, NIV or the "radical" (lol) amplified


----------



## 660griz (Dec 22, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Thanks. Tell your cat "Hi" for me.



Tell Jesus "Happy Belated Birthday", for me.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 22, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> It is safe to say that in the thousands of books you've read, none of them addressed the problem of stupid assumptions. The assumed contradiction only exposes your lack of information... or intelligence.



When you say things like this do you mean that when one doesn't acknowledge God's righteousness that they are forever speaking out of ignorance? 

For example, if I were to say "men can't walk on water" and you were to say "Jesus walked on water.  It says so in the Bible.  You are clearly ignorant."  Is that how you are using the word ignorance?


----------



## Israel (Dec 23, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When you say things like this do you mean that when one doesn't acknowledge God's righteousness that they are forever speaking out of ignorance?
> 
> For example, if I were to say "men can't walk on water" and you were to say "Jesus walked on water.  It says so in the Bible.  You are clearly ignorant."  Is that how you are using the word ignorance?



I am thinking more this:

 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: _whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. _10  And all _that have not fins and scales _in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:


Rather than this: 





> Try this: Leviticus 11:10 “Of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.”


----------



## bullethead (Dec 24, 2015)

Israel said:


> I am thinking more this:
> 
> These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: _whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. _10  And all _that have not fins and scales _in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
> 
> ...


So pick the translation that best suits you ?

How many in here eat shrimp, lobster, clams, mussels oysters?  How many have tattoos? How many have wives that braid their hair?

All abominations..


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So pick the translation that best suits you instead of the original?



I am not sure what you are saying.
While every translation (and, I admit, my studies are not exhaustive) I have ever seen makes clear distinctions between the "clean and unclean" found "in the waters", I have yet to see one prohibiting all. 
Do you know of one?
Is that what Asath has quoted:  



> Try this: Leviticus 11:10 â€œOf any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.â€�



A few translations of Leviticus 11:10

New International Version
But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to regard as unclean.

New Living Translation
But you must never eat animals from the sea or from rivers that do not have both fins and scales. They are detestable to you. This applies both to little creatures that live in shallow water and to all creatures that live in deep water.

English Standard Version
But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

New American Standard Bible 
'But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,

King James Bible
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But these are to be detestable to you: everything in the seas or streams that does not have fins and scales among all the swarming things and other living creatures in the water. 

International Standard Version
But anything that doesn't have fins or scalesâ€”whether from the seas or the riversâ€”any of the swarming creatures and living creatures in the waters are detestable for you. 

NET Bible
But any creatures that do not have both fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the streams, from all the swarming things of the water and from all the living creatures that are in the water, are detestable to you.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
However, you must consider all swarming creatures living in the seas or the streams that have no fins or scales disgusting.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing unto you,

New American Standard 1977 
â€˜But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers, that do not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,

Jubilee Bible 2000
But all that have not fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of any reptile in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you;

King James 2000 Bible
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

American King James Version
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination to you:

American Standard Version
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you,

Douay-Rheims Bible
But whatsoever hath not fins and scales, of those things that move and live in the waters, shall be an abomination to you, 

Darby Bible Translation
but all that have not fins and scales in seas and in rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of every living soul which is in the waters -- they shall be an abomination unto you.

English Revised Version
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you,

Webster's Bible Translation
And all that have not fins nor scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living animal which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination to you:

World English Bible
All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you,

Young's Literal Translation
and any one that hath not fins and scales in the seas, and in the brooks, of any teeming creature of the waters, and of any creature which liveth, which is in the waters -- an abomination they are to you;

Either that quote by Asath is severely abbreviated, leaving out qualifiers found in all the above, or you and he are familiar with another source. You do see "fins and scales" mentioned, correct?

This is from the Hebrew:

Lev 11:10 and·in·the·watercourses
And all that have not fins
and scales in the seas, and
in the rivers, of all that
move in the waters, and of
any living thing which [is]
in the waters, they [shall be]
an abomination unto you:

×•Ö° ×›Ö¹ ×œ
u·kl
and·all
×�Ö²×©×�Ö¶ ×¨
ashr
which
×�Öµ ×™×Ÿ
ain
there-is-no
Ö¾
-
×œ0
l·u
to·him
×¡Ö° × Ö·×¤Ö¼Ö´ ×™×¨
snphir
fin
×•Ö° ×§Ö· ×©×‚Ö° ×§Ö¶ ×©×‚Ö¶ ×ª
u·qshqshth
and·scale
×‘Ö¼Ö· ×™Ö¼Ö·×žÖ¼Ö´ ×™×�
b·imim
in·the·seas
×•Ö¼×‘Ö· × Ö¼Ö° ×—Ö¸ ×œÖ´ ×™×�
u·b·nchlim

×žÖ´ ×›Ö¼Ö¹ ×œ
m·kl
from·every-of
×©×�Ö¶ ×¨Ö¶ ×¥
shrtz
roamer-of
×”Ö· ×žÖ¼Ö· ×™Ö´ ×�
e·mim
the·waters
×•Ö¼×žÖ´ ×›Ö¼Ö¹ ×œ
u·m·kl
and·from·every-of
× Ö¶×¤Ö¶ ×©×�
nphsh
soul
×”Ö· ×—Ö· ×™Ö¼Ö¸×”
e·chie
the·living
×�Ö²×©×�Ö¶ ×¨
ashr
which
×‘Ö¼Ö· ×žÖ¼Ö¸ ×™Ö´ ×�
b·mim
in·the·waters


----------



## Israel (Dec 24, 2015)

bullethead said:


> So pick the translation that best suits you ?
> 
> How many in here eat shrimp, lobster, clams, mussels oysters?  How many have tattoos? How many have wives that braid their hair?
> 
> All abominations..



If Asath was mistaken in his remembrance of a verse, I don't know.

If your editing and added queries are merely an attempt to save face...well, that I also understand also.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 24, 2015)

Israel said:


> If Asath was mistaken in his remembrance of a verse, I don't know.
> 
> If your editing and added queries are merely an attempt to save face...well, that I also understand also.


My edit was at 440 AM and it is precisely what I wanted said.
Since you quoted me EXACTLY as my edit states and AFTER my edit was long done it is obvious I changed nothing regarding what you replied to so no attempt was made to save face or anything else.
If you are unable to tell time or reference my exact post that you quoted and merely hope no one fact checks your claim, well I understand that also.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 25, 2015)

Asath said:


> Ye Gads!  Of course Jesus wouldn’t want you to be an intellectual.  The whole story starts with the Aesop’s Fables-worthy tale of that Adam and Eve couple, having been CREATED in GOD’S image, messing things up for all of us for all time for the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge.  (They didn’t have public libraries yet, so knowledge grew on trees – it says so.)  The Good Book, (which you shouldn’t read, because if knowledge is the original sin, then reading it is just compounding that error, and because knowledge is sin there can’t be any in that Book, because that would be rather a contradiction), isn’t all that specific about just what sort of knowledge Adam and Eve gained by eating from that particular tree.  Maybe they learned how to remove stubborn stains from satin sheets.  Presumably there were other trees that they were allowed to eat from, else they’d have starved, but clearly this God fella wasn’t pleased that they chose to eat from this one in particular, and that was pretty much it for the rest of us from there on down.  So pronounces the KJV and my local voice-box preacher, and if you don’t agree, well, you might be a closet Unitarian, and we don’t cotton to those sorts of folks.  Look around.  They drive Japanese cars and there isn’t a single one of them in the Rotary Club.
> 
> Actual intellectuals, the ones who’ve made the pilgrimage to the Creationist Museum, and read the captions, know better.  All of mankind was created last Wednesday, at noon, but only after one failed attempt, which was just a Beta version, and didn’t really count.  That whole ‘Seven Days of Creation’ thing?  It really happened that way.  That much is fully proven, and can brook no questions.  Problem was, around about day 300 or so, (time was just invented, and hadn’t had the bugs worked out, so sometimes a years lasted five days, and sometimes 960 years happened in only forty years), so it might have been day 340, or day 3400, nobody knows – anyway, at some point after those really cool seven days when the whole universe was just one rocking place, popping into being left and right, God looked at his Humanity that He’d created, and said – ‘Yikes.  THAT doesn’t work. Do-Over.’  So he drowned them all, declared a mulligan, and took one stroke off his score for the round.  It says so, right in that Book of (illicit) Knowledge.
> 
> ...




Where ya been, dude?  Glad to see you back!


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2015)

Now.
Whether Asath cares to engage on a quote that is entirely changed by the omission of a few words, and whether he has a translation of Lev 11:10 to support such an omission is up to him.
As has been said, no need to infer a malicious intent when a simple matter of mis-remembering can be an answer. Unless, of course there is a better one...as in presenting a translation supporting it as not a mis-remembering, but an actual place where Lev 11:10 leaves out "scales and fins". 

Everything after this is just an obvious attempt to obfuscate and deflect what could be this quite merited response: Maybe it's not best to take ones stand on having read thousands of books while misquoting the one you attempt to vilify in what you claim is a scrupulosity rendered to truth by such _enormous_ reading.

A better question could be "why and how are things mis-remembered?" Is there a compelling convenience born of something devious in its most fundamental motive? Can the appeal to appear as triumphant be so strong as to outweigh the then lesser appeal of integrity? It is most easily _"squelched out"_. How far can a man go, or will a man go in this, (or, has he already gone?) that seeking of ascension to the place of being able to speak with impunity, actually deceived by his own lacking of integrity? 
How much will a man compromise in his desire to appear as victor? Is it true he could, by the gaining of what once appeared as all that could possibly be gained...actually lose all that is really of true necessity and value?

But, in a world of compromisers of what value would integrity be except as bothersome baggage or taunting notion...some quaint reminder? It could even get one killed, I believe, if pressed.
"In the world of the blind" it is said, "the one eyed man is King." But really, not so.
In the world of men it is less the one eyed man, than the one who is able to convince others, though blind, he has an eye. The one best at snake talk will reign a while.

But, everything is subject to change.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 26, 2015)

Israel said:


> Now.
> Whether Asath cares to engage on a quote that is entirely changed by the omission of a few words, and whether he has a translation of Lev 11:10 to support such an omission is up to him.
> As has been said, no need to infer a malicious intent when a simple matter of mis-remembering can be an answer. Unless, of course there is a better one...as in presenting a translation supporting it as not a mis-remembering, but an actual place where Lev 11:10 leaves out "scales and fins".
> 
> ...



NOW! This is not cryptic at all. Don't care who you are in the mosqitoing  brotherhood. No obfuscation and defection  here! Necessity has not invented its mother this time--- by gally. This ain't no spin doctoring Amateur Night on the PF. This is no cryptic dig at a player not counting all his strokes or worse his ball pickup and shift on the fairway. Nope. This is real! Two poets might loose their licenses for good, for loss of control or outright shifting of personality.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2015)

Israel said:


> Now.
> Whether Asath cares to engage on a quote that is entirely changed by the omission of a few words, and whether he has a translation of Lev 11:10 to support such an omission is up to him.
> As has been said, no need to infer a malicious intent when a simple matter of mis-remembering can be an answer. Unless, of course there is a better one...as in presenting a translation supporting it as not a mis-remembering, but an actual place where Lev 11:10 leaves out "scales and fins".
> 
> ...


I cannot speak for Asath.
And speaking of deflection, the rest you posted above is a fine example. You didn't have to go into such great detail as a deflection example but "in a world of deflection the long winded post is King " But really, so. Hisss Hissss


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I cannot speak for Asath.
> And speaking of deflection, the rest you posted above is a fine example. You didn't have to go into such great detail as a deflection example but "in a world of deflection the long winded post is King " But really, so. Hisss Hissss



Do you know why an unjust balance is an abomination?



> Now.
> Whether Asath cares to engage on a quote that is entirely changed by the omission of a few words, and whether he has a translation of Lev 11:10 to support such an omission is up to him.
> As has been said, no need to infer a malicious intent when a simple matter of mis-remembering can be an answer. Unless, of course there is a better one...as in presenting a translation supporting it as not a mis-remembering, but an actual place where Lev 11:10 leaves out "scales and fins".
> 
> ...






> Ye Gads! Of course Jesus wouldn’t want you to be an intellectual. The whole story starts with the Aesop’s Fables-worthy tale of that Adam and Eve couple, having been CREATED in GOD’S image, messing things up for all of us for all time for the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge. (They didn’t have public libraries yet, so knowledge grew on trees – it says so.) The Good Book, (which you shouldn’t read, because if knowledge is the original sin, then reading it is just compounding that error, and because knowledge is sin there can’t be any in that Book, because that would be rather a contradiction), isn’t all that specific about just what sort of knowledge Adam and Eve gained by eating from that particular tree. Maybe they learned how to remove stubborn stains from satin sheets. Presumably there were other trees that they were allowed to eat from, else they’d have starved, but clearly this God fella wasn’t pleased that they chose to eat from this one in particular, and that was pretty much it for the rest of us from there on down. So pronounces the KJV and my local voice-box preacher, and if you don’t agree, well, you might be a closet Unitarian, and we don’t cotton to those sorts of folks. Look around. They drive Japanese cars and there isn’t a single one of them in the Rotary Club.
> 
> Actual intellectuals, the ones who’ve made the pilgrimage to the Creationist Museum, and read the captions, know better. All of mankind was created last Wednesday, at noon, but only after one failed attempt, which was just a Beta version, and didn’t really count. That whole ‘Seven Days of Creation’ thing? It really happened that way. That much is fully proven, and can brook no questions. Problem was, around about day 300 or so, (time was just invented, and hadn’t had the bugs worked out, so sometimes a years lasted five days, and sometimes 960 years happened in only forty years), so it might have been day 340, or day 3400, nobody knows – anyway, at some point after those really cool seven days when the whole universe was just one rocking place, popping into being left and right, God looked at his Humanity that He’d created, and said – ‘Yikes. THAT doesn’t work. Do-Over.’ So he drowned them all, declared a mulligan, and took one stroke off his score for the round. It says so, right in that Book of (illicit) Knowledge.
> 
> ...



What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

Something must be sold, like integrity, to gain something of what, in the end, proves of no value.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2015)

Sorry, i blacked out 1/3 of the way down your deflection repost.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Sorry, i blacked out 1/3 of the way down your deflection repost.


Many men have fainted at their own reflection. Some have died.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Many men have fainted at their own reflection. Some have died.


No doubt.
I am glad evolution has built in a safety valve that kicks in before enduring prolonged exposure to the reflective words of others. Though, Death is less painful than a second helping too.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2015)

Israel said:


> Do you know why an unjust balance is an abomination?


I guess for the same whacked out reasons a 5000 year old society thought braiding hair was an abomination.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I guess for the same whacked out reasons a 5000 year old society thought braiding hair was an abomination.


This just keeps getting better by the post.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> This just keeps getting better by the post.



Tell me about it! Next post may include the abominations of getting a haircut or beard trim, planting 2 different types of seeds in the same field, wearing clothing woven with two different types of material, or heaven forbid...having a BLT sammich!
5000 years ago your god said it is ok to own slaves but don't order the #11 on Micky Ds drive thru.
Having some steamed clams,  a dozen oysters on the half shell or some shrimp cocktail and crawdads on New Years eve is JUST as much of an abomination as sleeping with another man. Yep it just got better alright.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 26, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Tell me about it! Next post may include the abominations of getting a haircut or beard trim, planting 2 different types of seeds in the same field, wearing clothing woven with two different types of material, or heaven forbid...having a BLT sammich!
> 5000 years ago your god said it is ok to own slaves but don't order the #11 on Micky Ds drive thru.
> Having some steamed clams,  a dozen oysters on the half shell or some shrimp cocktail and crawdads on New Years eve is JUST as much of an abomination as sleeping with another man. Yep it just got better alright.


Are you still guessing?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 27, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you still guessing?


Nah I already know the NT/Jesus card gets played for certain abominations and forgotten about for others.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 27, 2015)

Ive never seen anyone fight something so hard which he claims doesn't exist.Something supernatural MUST be involved.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 27, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Ive never seen anyone fight something so hard which he claims doesn't exist.Something supernatural MUST be involved.


I dont fight the non existent. If you take careful note I am not conversing with a god in here.
I like to discuss claims made by people that exist.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I dont fight the non existent. If you take careful note I am not conversing with a god in here.
> I like to discuss claims made by people that exist.



Seems like one and the same to me.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Seems like one and the same to me.


The inability to tell the difference is a major part of the problem.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 28, 2015)

bullethead said:


> The inability to tell the difference is a major part of the problem.



I still stand by my statement that there must be something supernatural involved.
Can you honestly say that you care about the person that you are disagreeing with? Or, do you hope your words will cut them down to size and put them in their place?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I still stand by my statement that there must be something supernatural involved.
> Can you honestly say that you care about the person that you are disagreeing with? Or, do you hope your words will cut them down to size and put them in their place?


I honestly do not follow your line of thought here.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 28, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I still stand by my statement that there must be something supernatural involved.
> Can you honestly say that you care about the person that you are disagreeing with? Or, do you hope your words will cut them down to size and put them in their place?



I think another way of looking at is; what purpose are either of you or me discussing these  topics? Is it pride?
Are we equally as guilty of cutting the other down to size?

If the atheist can't be awakened unless called, if he hasn't been chosen at the foundation, what's the point?

Now going the other way, if the elect or chosen  can't be lead astray, what's the point?

Pride? Putting the other in their place? Learning, teaching, helping, caring? Perhaps it's just sharing different points of view.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think another way of looking at is; what purpose are either of you or me discussing these  topics? Is it pride?
> Are we equally as guilty of cutting the other down to size?
> 
> If the atheist can't be awakened unless called, if he hasn't been chosen at the foundation, what's the point?
> ...



As far as I understand your belief system, you are commissioned to preach the gospel because you can't tell if someone who is presently an Atheist is actually one of the Elect thusfar unrealized.

But then there's that "pearls before swine" and the "shake the dust off your feet" thing......

The problem is that I, being unrepentant, don't possess the secret-discernment-super-power-know how to interpret scripture properly.  So don't take my word for it.

The other point that you bring up is that maybe an Atheist is an agent of God whose job it is to expose a false, un-elect "believer".  But that would be one of your scenarios.


----------



## welderguy (Dec 29, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I honestly do not follow your line of thought here.



It was just a simple question...until it got over analized and complicated.


----------

