Child dies of cancer

[bullethead]

I am reminded of a statement that my Grandmother made to me when my first was born. "You think you understand all there is about love until you hold your fist child"

They think being Christian is all about joining a church and following the do`s and don'ts while waiting on a magic show to start. You and I along with many others know that there is one thing that science has absolutely zero explanation for and it is because they themselves don't even have a clue of what it is.

They cant see the forest for the trees. They'll spend their entire life focusing on evolution to debunk creation. Evolution is nothing but something living reproducing something living.......they`re basically explaining reproduction. They have no idea of how life began.

If what you say is true in post #159, WHO exactly are the THEY you are talking about to SFD in the post above since he was specifically talking about me and us in here?
You conveniently left out all the times you specifically used THEY when addressing SFD.

My 4 comments were not rants. They were made in direct responce to your use of the multiple times you used THEY.

You seem to conveniently leave out certain words that do not help your claims and reply as if you didn't use them. That is what will not be tolerated and why I called you on it.

 

[WaltL1]

I agree that libraries and science can tell others what we believe, but that is not the point. Unless they experience the salvation part, they cant explain it, and they have explained it yet as we have experienced it so the proof is in the pudding.

Proof of what?
Proof that you had an experience?
David Berkowitz experienced a dog telling him to kill people.
That's the experience he had so the proof is in the pudding right?

 

[Spotlite]

Proof of what?
Proof that you had an experience?
David Berkowitz experienced a dog telling him to kill people.
That's the experience he had so the proof is in the pudding right?

If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.

 

[WaltL1]

If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.

My friend, with all due respect, you gotta find a new argument
"Science" is comprised of scientists. Its the combined knowledge of all the scientists that is "science"
A number of those scientists are Christians. Assuming they have experienced salvation, then what they "know"/think/believe about it are a part of scientific knowledge.
Science can tell you what we have learned about why people believe in gods, the super natural, how some peoples brains react to those subjects and some people's don't etc.
Are you really expecting science to be able to explain every thought that YOU have in YOUR head?

 

[Spotlite]

If what you say is true in post #159, WHO exactly are the THEY you are talking about to SFD in the post above since he was specifically talking about me and us in here?
You conveniently left out all the times you specifically used THEY when addressing SFD.

My 4 comments were not rants. They were made in direct responce to your use of the multiple times you used THEY.

You seem to conveniently leave out certain words that do not help your claims and reply as if you didn't use them. That is what will not be tolerated and why I called you on it.

“They” means in general to those that think that that is what Christianity is about. If it does not quote you or state bullethead, or represent how you felt when you were a Christian, then it does not apply to you and no way disregards your direct testimony.

Such as below, you make a statement that you are not saying "all Christians" and then make this one?? Who is "they" when you conveniently leave out certain words for you claims?

Regardless, I felt no need to respond to this because it does not represent me.

I don't care who you are referring to below since it did not quote me.

In between building pedestals for themselves and giving credit for everything to their god, they willingly skip over the possibility that if their god is truly responsible for everything then the non believers are a product of its works too. They got too caught upnin the circular run around that is used for explanation.

 

[Spotlite]

My friend, with all due respect, you gotta find a new argument
"Science" is comprised of scientists. Its the combined knowledge of all the scientists that is "science"
A number of those scientists are Christians. Assuming they have experienced salvation, then what they "know"/think/believe about it are a part of scientific knowledge.
Science can tell you what we have learned about why people believe in gods, the super natural, how some peoples brains react to those subjects and some people's don't etc.
Are you really expecting science to be able to explain every thought that YOU have in YOUR head?

Ok..............I will make note of this the next time the "chemical reaction" from the brain is given as an explanation

But no, I don`t look to science for any of that.

 

[matt79brown]

"Had that happen once, but it was chemically induced." ~Steve Earl

 

[Tmpr111]

He was asked a specific question. "Why didn't God stop the trigger from being pulled"?
His response was too expound on "the ethic of love".
I think they call that an "end around" in football.

I think it was a great response and made perfect sense. Glad I stumbled upon it.

 

[Israel]

In one sense, and because of that one sense, in which I find a great likeness, I find no need of antipathy to what is commonly called science.
Any compulsion to be "anti" anything, or retain a stance of anti anything is wearying as any battle against...must become. Being anti...simply wears down the soul.

But it is not simply the wearing down of the soul that is manifest proof of the worthiness of finding remission to anti-ness, unless a something to be for can be demonstrated to the mind.

The call to battle is easily heard and ubiquitous, to every soul. No soul needs to be informed it has in it the sense to know there is resident a mechanism for the sensing of opposition. The soul knows it can sense opposition, even if its assumptions as to source that triggered its sense of opposition are later shown not as assumed. Alarm bells are on a hair trigger, here.

Fight or flight in the dark woods at night are initiated equally by rustling bush, no matter if it be bear or fawn. The soul...which has in itself as fundamental source the desire to continue...to live, to exist, to be...also has within, as fundamental source...the need to know. This is inextricably paired with, or to, its need to exist, and be. The soul is as much driven to acquisition as it is to preservation.

Yes, I over simplify. And I speak of the soul's sojourn "in the world".

I don't think one has to be very clever to see where this easily promotes conflict in the soul. The extension into the unknown to the end of making it known to the soul, is fraught with threats of invitation to non being to the soul. Conflict. The soul, of itself, can never resolve this. Need to know is always at loggerheads with preservation.

I also don't think one need be very clever to see the exponential increase of conflict of potential when souls are multiplied to one another. And conflict, in fact.

And conflict...which invariably leads to the assumption of an "anti" stance in the soul to whatever it senses opposes it...is also as invariably wearying and depleting of soul's strictly limited resource of self...limited precisely to a perfect wash by the already present conflict within. The compulsion to "have and be" in conflict with "to have more and be more".

 

[WaltL1]

I think it was a great response and made perfect sense. Glad I stumbled upon it.

Its great you were satisfied with his answer.
Personally, when I ask a specific question and the response given is to go off on a tangent about something else............ I know a shiny object is being waved in front of me in an attempt to cause me to concentrate on it instead of noticing that my specific question is being dodged.
And here was the warning sign -
He repeated the question and started his response with....... "here is what I would say to you".......
That's "end around" lingo for "I cant really answer your specific question but here is what I would say to you......... shiny object, shiny object"........

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

 

[Israel]

Fudging the data is as common to man as breathing.

 

[atlashunter]

If one wants to believe that he talked to a dog, I guess so. I’ve never gotten one to answer me so I don’t know if the dog just didn’t like me or I wasn’t saying anything he was interested in. Who am I to tell he didn’t talk to one. But that’s not what we are taking about, the salvation process. It’s more than just saying you believe. There’s a change that takes place that science can’t properly describe. Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about.

Yours is not the only religion whose followers claim to be changed or claim special experiences.

 

[atlashunter]

Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

False dichotomy.

 

[Spotlite]

Either Scientist are credible or they are not.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/

Yup. Some people - that means “some” people (have to clarify who I’m addressing ) are going to be smart enough to know which scientists are credible and when.

 

[1eyefishing]

I like Whiston's theories.
I am more theory-ological than theological.
I don't understand, much less know what is beyond our universe. Or what caused our universe.
I have faith, but not knowledge of what happens to our soul after death.
Without some faith and some hope, I can only believe that will it will be exactly like before I was born. I believe that there may have been some previous soul (of mine) and previous actions of such that have brought me to the place where I am in this life.
I believe I am an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if the dog is real.
Given the connections I make with dogs, I believe I could have been one in a former life. So I don't believe that only humans have souls. But I am human, these are things that humans simply cannot know. But without faith and hope, I have nothing. But I will never have the knowledge. Not in this lifetime. And probably not in the next.
Everybody believes what they believe. No sense arguing about what you cannot know.
Peace, love, and Dixie to all...

 

[Spotlite]

Yours is not the only religion whose followers claim to be changed or claim special experiences.

And???????

 

[WaltL1]

And???????

And...… if experiences are the proof in the pudding (your words) then their pudding is proof too.
Or neither one of your puddings is proof of anything at all.

 

[WaltL1]

I like Whiston's theories.
I am more theory-ological than theological.
I don't understand, much less know what is beyond our universe. Or what caused our universe.
I have faith, but not knowledge of what happens to our soul after death.
Without some faith and some hope, I can only believe that will it will be exactly like before I was born. I believe that there may have been some previous soul (of mine) and previous actions of such that have brought me to the place where I am in this life.
I believe I am an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if the dog is real.
Given the connections I make with dogs, I believe I could have been one in a former life. So I don't believe that only humans have souls. But I am human, these are things that humans simply cannot know. But without faith and hope, I have nothing. But I will never have the knowledge. Not in this lifetime. And probably not in the next.
Everybody believes what they believe. No sense arguing about what you cannot know.
Peace, love, and Dixie to all...

I believe that there may have been some previous soul (of mine) and previous actions of such that have brought me to the place where I am in this life.
I believe I am an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac.

Sounds like you are part Hindu too

 

[Spotlite]

And...… if experiences are the proof in the pudding (your words) then their pudding is proof too.
Or neither one of your puddings is proof of anything at all.

Not exactly what that is saying. When you asked “proof of what” my explanation to that was - “Their lack of explaining it properly is proof that they haven’t experienced it. It’s not an argument about if it’s real or not, it’s a statement that one can’t argue for or against something that he knows nothing about”