Hi Deb,

I see you have entered into the foray once again and t6argeted a lot of consternation.

Bad gurl!

I agree. The Bible contains its own proof.

How now brown cow? It's not the red heifer.

The 10 Commandments were written in stone . The stones can't be found but the words can.

They are given by the LORD, your God, JHWH. A specific God.

The first commandment says, " You shall have no other Gods before me."

Pantheism, right there. Where there are many, there must be one.
That there is one, then are many counterfeits. Pantheism.

How? If this law were infallable, then there would exist no further reason to establish a different criteria for worship.
Nor a means to overcome rebellion from the Word itself.

Unless this law is saying something else, which in any case would defeat itself as being a subjective law enforceable only by the will and determination of the compliant, it must be immutable. To be immutable, there must exist criteria, or imperical evidence to support its veracity.

So, I shall display the evidence of such an immutable law with evidence provided within the laws themselves and not without the laws themselves, except to say that the lawgiver Himself gives us the evidence within ourselves.

The atheist says there is no god. Apparently, they didn't get the memo that said The LORD thy God, JHWH, was clear in His distinction...no other gods before me. Can an atheist place any other god before the LORD thy God? NOPE!!!! So then, the souvereignty of the atheist is secure in that they have no god.
Immutably, this first law holds true for the atheist.

To the Jew, this law is holy and believed wholeheartedly, yet the LORD thy God which spoke to their ancestors does not speak to them today, yet they maintain that the LORD thy God is the one true God. Immutable.

To the Christian, the LORD thy God is the one true God and they maintain that He is God. Immutable. Albeit, the Christian also holds that the LORD thy God does speak to His people today and that He is not silent. Now we see layers to this law emerging.

But still immutable.

To the pantheist, there are many gods, perhaps every individual on the face of the earth at any given time is ones own god and among many gods that comprise one collective god. The sum is greater than the parts. BUt then, for this to be immutable it must be that people ad all created life muust exist to establish god in general. What immutablilty is in a finite creation that is agreed to have a beginning and most certainly may contain an end? If creation is god, then there must be a Creator. THAT is immutable. Immutable because the created thing, in any observable definition is not without beginning and assuredly not without end in such a case however to have been determined to have been created, or begun. Immutable.

So, if this law is immutable to even the narrowest of interpretations of creation, it is also true in the absence of creation, unless man must be requisite for this law's immutability; to be observed. That it still exists, but is not observed without mankind does not negate the law.

Now then, The LORD thy God is not always and in all instances upon all men equally subscribed to and agreed to in the form presented or in the veracity of that law upon man's doings even though it appears that this immutable law is a subjective one.

Where it becomes subjective is in the interpretation of "no other gods". Wherein it prescribes that the hearer of this law (in the form of it's directed subjection), "YOU SHALL HAVE",is the same prerequisite upon the law that there be "no other gods before me". Putting another god between the LORD thy God and oneself is where the problem exists for this law in the minds of men. The attempt to sequester this law from its veracity is observed in the different ways in which man prevents presenting himself before this god. Still, it is immutable owing to the covert obstinance in man to defy it.

How then is this law not immutable except by the pretensiousness that sunscribes to refuting it as a myth and a fairy tale or even as being subjective to the analysis of it?

The law is not immutable to those that refuse it. It is muted in such a case. And that subjectivity comes from the judgement of the recipient. Such subjectivity precludes such a one from honoring any further law subscribed to as from the LORD thy God, JHWH.

That the law can be muted does not preclude it from its selfsame immutability, except in the mind of the refuter of such a law.

Since the law was given to man from one man that was told this law, attributed to Moses' charge, it stands to reason therefore that its immutability can be refuted as being man based and of a subjectively assumed authorship, and thereby refuted by any.

So, it is not immutable, after all, but quite subjective in fact and observation.

And in the selfsame record of this law being given, we have record that others had heard from the LORD thy God prior to Moses having been given this charge, according to this same record. We also have record that others had heard from the LORD thy God since Moses, according to this selfsame record.
Most notably, JESUS. Even He is recorded as having reiterated this law when he said, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord : And you shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength : this is the first commandment
And the second is like, namely this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Rejecting this law requires rejecting this record of the law.
Rejecting this record of this law makes it mutable to the rejector.


Be it that the rejectors of this record voice their displeasure only proves the immutablility of this law to those that do not reject this law. To the ones that reject this law, the law is mutable.

Being mutable, it is not a law that is imperically disproved.

It is merely being ignored and dismissed. Yet, all the while substantiating itself as seperate and exclusive in its observation; that there is one God that is the Lord of all mankind.

Feel free to dismiss the immutablility of this law's veracity.

PLease, in doing so, remember to excuse everything that you have ever heard and learned about humanity that is found in the record that presents this law to you.

And please , while in such a state as that, refrain from telling the those that affirm this law that it is in fact unprovable.


After all, you know nothing of such things, by your own admission.

To those that would subscribe to the mutability of this law :


Enjoy the silence.....it is your choice.

Yes we are opinionated.

Yes we are analytical.

Yes it was "just a thread."

Upon this I do agree.

(It is not a crime or a "sin" to be opinionated or analytical in my opinion.)

If you would have stated your beliefs in the right way, stating that this was proof enough for you, you would probably have not heard a peep out of anyone except people who think the same way.

So perhaps you wanted the attention.

Wouldee:



Impressive.

wouldee:

Hello my friend, I hesitated here...


Your post has garnered my attention. I wonder of the pantheism which is described by your response. I am unaware of any possibility of an indivisible 'God' to be anything other than a singular notion. I believe that your description may not fit a true pantheistic notion of 'God'...

The premise of a monotheistic 'God' being all there was at one point in time, cannot logically describe anything other than 'God' using 'God' for creation purposes. 'God' was all there was.

Logically then, would it not follow that all things would be of 'God'?

For a creator of substance must be prior in nature to it's creation, if this creator was all that existed. If this creator was not all that existed, then it too was but a creation, and not the creator of all things.

From out of a salty well, one will only draw salty water.

Hey buddy,

A salty well will corrode whereas clean water washes. I'll give you that.


My notion about pantheism is directly related to how this commandmant was received by Moses. Apparently there was the need to express this notion about "other gods".

Not having them before the Lord seems on the surface to suggest a need to address something other than the LORD was in the minds of the Jews when the message was given. What is subsequently told is how that Moses came down off the mountain where he received this word, he found the people of the LORD engaged in duplicitous behavior suspiciously consuming themselves in worship of another sort. That being the case, it can be inferred that other gods existed, if only in the minds of His people, which in fact were intimately entwined with JHWH, the LORD their God, and forgetting about that relationship by fellowshipping elsewhere.

Being that the declaration is "the LORD your God, or JHWH...your 'guiding light', it can be assumed there existed other 'gods' that were not the 'god if Israel'.

The point I am making is that this law was given to Israel, not the rest of the world, thereby making tis law specific in address, not generic.

Being specific, one can reason that the words expressed and preserved for future generations was subjective and not universal, however, the universal attributes of such a law, whether engendered subjectively or not, still hold value and apply to all as all suficient to prove its veracity.

The only requirement then is to be subjective to it or ignore it. Ignore the law, and all relevant and pertinent connections with that law are void, and any and all discontent with that law need not be debated by any that don't recognize the subjective benefactions of such a law.

To the pantheist, specifically, the LORD thy God of the Bible is not their god.

Now then, about there being one Creator as you have brought up in questioning my remarks ; the God of the Bible is JHWH, and Christians believe that He is Jsus Christ, the incarnate manifestation of JHWH, The LORD God of Lsrael. ( though some dispute the exact nature of that point)

Point being, JHWH and Jesus Christ and the Old Testament prophets are clear on one very peculiar point. That point is that all communication assumed to come from the Creator is directed through JHWH to the people, and subsequently directed to the people from Jesus Christ, the Son of God being believed to be the incarnate Living Word and being present with the Father, or The Creator, at creation.

If this is true, and there are other gods, then it is clear that the other gods are not privy to direct communication to the people in the name of the Father, or Creator, apart from the LORD, or JHWH.

The issue is what constitutes a 'god'. Not what constitutes The Creator.

The laws that govern Israel's spiritual life are from the LORD their God, JHWH. The same is true for the Christian and the only difference is that for the Christian, this God of Israel, manifested Himself in flesh and walked among man as a man and then was violently returned from whence He came.

But at no time should it be assumed that prrof is required of detractors other than the proof given in the record that such a law is universal and that the same law holds true without qualification in that this particular god is the God of the willing and the benefits of His law is towards His subjects, as if He were a King.

How the pantheistic view detours from this law is a matter of yield and surrender to it, by no means is necessarliy debased with a lack of proof, but merely not the god of the pantheists, which are apparently many.

Though The Creator may be credited with being entirely singular, and His direct emmissary of His will and good pleasure known to man through a Supreme God that many hold in contempt for having such a designation does not preclude the designation, nor does it preclude the notion in the hearts and minds of men that refuse to yield to it. It merely shows that although men will ignore this law, this law is still subjective to the obedience of the willing, not that this law is lacking proof.

You see, the whole argument against this law is engendered in rebellion to it, and any refutation of it must come from a clear understanding of it and the other laws contained in the record of this law, not from mutually exclusive resources that can refute it. To disprove a law without the record of such a law is disengenuous, thereby making the necessity to prove this law to the skeptic unecessary as well since the law itself is precluded in the judgement of the skeptic of being valid, et al.

Being unnecessary to prove independently of its own record, it proves itself through its very unique self fulfilling claim.

Now what is left is for the believers of other gods to prove their god and not insist on disproving the God of Israel.

Can't be done. The God of Israel is the only one that speaks for The Creator. That is His purpose.

The rest, and there are many of them, only echo in lighthearted manner the attributes expressed by this one particular god and mimick His Word.

Hardly worth being offended by.

So God or god or gods, the question really amounts to which one speaks for, if any, The Creator.

If it's not the God of Israel, then why such an uproar over this god?

Unless, of course, the others are not really gods.

hhmmmm......

I hope that answered your question, but I doubt that it has.

For the pantheists to be so alarmed at the words attributed to "the God of Israel" is not difficult to grasp. It merely speaks to the rebellious nature of many that refuse to bend the knee to a Supreme Deity that has expressed particular responsibilities to being human and fully realizing one's human potential with regards to human design.

The issue that pantheists have with this god is not that he is or tha He has spoken of His will, but rather more to do with not wanting to be less than souvereign without external proofs that such souvereignty of man does not exist.

Prove otherwise, I say. It can't be done.

There is a law...a spiritual law. " You shall have no other gods before me."

This is why He does not speak to the doubters and skeptics. They refuse Him, and place themselves or other notions between themselves and this One God.

All else is reduced to worshipping creation.

Creation cannot prove God, creation is proof of GOD!!!!

Creation cannot prove God, creation is proof of GOD!!!!

HUH???
A very confusing statement. Please simplify.





I don't call this a "spiritual law" (I call it the ranting of a dictator.)




True, It would be pointless to do so..




Is the above your personal view or the assumed "view of a pantheist?"


I have been called a "pantheist" even though I have seldom called myself anything, only discovering that I was a pantheist after someone gave me that label.

My proof of God is my own existence.

Jeannie

Hmmmm....

One is one...

More than one is not...

I believe that 'God' is indivisible, based upon the notion of 'God' being first.

I know why I believe in what I believe, and it has nothing to do with mankind's written history, per se; Albeit the marvelous feeling of recognizing what lived inside of me which had so clouded my own vision of that which I am made of...

Which led to...

The removal of the incorruptable worldly fingerprint, which always remains so, as long as one views it through itself...

The systematic removal of that which is not, in order to witness, recognize, receive, and rejoice in that which has always been...

'God'

hmmm...

two responses that confess that God is real.
I agree.

My conversation is found through Christ's offering of the Holy Spirit to me, which, by the way, I ahd no control over receiving. It is a gift to me and one that I am grateful for.

Having believed in God in the past by what I experienced all around me lacked this gift, but nonetheless, I believed.

Now I know, and by whom I am known.

It warms my heart that we agree on proof being a personal conviction.

It further gives me great joy to know that I am loved by God and by His presence in my life I know that I can never feel apart from Him.

I enjoy the sincerity, and rejoice with you both that God is real and evident to us.

Peace

As always my friend...

It isn't just proof for me....It's proof for billions of people on this planet....and the reason also for me.....is so someone coming into the religion thread and sees the proof I put out there.....will think to themselves, "self this might be worth looking into." I like the proof that feral has put in this thread.

And I didn't want just like thinkers......

It is faith. It is not proof. (I don't care how many billions of people on the planet believe it, it is still faith. ) And you are right about one thing, "thinkers" would never see it as proof.

SURPRISE – some people aren’t here for ‘dating’ at all.



Wow, Sun Worshipping has a heck of long ‘lent’ season.

Speaking of lent, what’s the purpose of giving up sugar for lent, and then buying sugar free cookies and candy?



You didn’t expect that to last, did you? Really?



My bumper sticker says “Would Jesus Discriminate?” And I’ve discussed it with several who have commented on it – and they never even knew I’m atheist. Taking cues from religious leaders can be instructive when attempting to “influence” those who are easily led.



As an atheist, I have never gotten over the fact that the best expression of emotion, whether in the heat of a great sexual encounter, a stunned moment of disbelief, or when laughing hysterically at a comment, such as above, is best expressed with the words : Oh My God!




Actually “The Republic” written by Plato in 360 BCE is quite a lengthy piece of work. It is more easily understood than the Bible and one would be hard-pressed to even “imagine” the bible, when compared to the “The Republic” has made it through “IN TACT”. Of course there are many other large volumes of work, essentially, much more in tact AND understandable than the bible.



Oh, this was in reference to the guy who was feared he had wandered into a “Christian” dating site. Actually, his objection may have been different, had he realized, some are not here to date, at all.



“ OH MY GOD!” She exclaimed, while laughing out loud. And suddenly a thought interrupts the laugher, “maybe one should resist the urge to confront, ‘talking walls’.”




Obviously the schools are failing far worse than we suspected, even the “simplicity”, of the quote in question, must be explained to people who have spoken English, their whole lives.

Ah – but wait there is more!



Oh, I feel redeemed (pun intended), I have faith again that I’m functionally literate in my native language, however, I must have missed the class, in school, where they taught that understanding the English language, may, at times, require a religious belief.



Knowing who wrote this, I commend the quote. A personal belief, SHOULD, have a role in guiding one’s life, but not the lives of others.




The first sentence pertains to the ten commandments, the second to the bible in total.

However, we have previously been led to undertand that one must FIRST believe in order to interpret that which contains the law.
Since the ten commandments requires, first and foremost the belief to exist, “I am the Lord your God, you shall no others before me” before you can even understand what you may be contracting for, obviously explains how walls can talk.


A recent dissertation I prepared for a class:

" Humans seem to have an innate need to have an explanation for

every phenomenon related to the senses. Just as the mind will

connect the open spaces of a drawing to provide “closure” or

to complete a picture, so too, will the mind create

explanations for the unknown and the misunderstood. I’m not

sure if that provides comfort or just lends support to ones’

beliefs but it seems that most humans require the instant

gratification of knowledge, even when it fails to be logical,

rational or accurate. The explanations that are created will

have a basis in reality, if we consider what one believes to

be a part of their reality. If I believe that ghosts exist, I

can believe I’ve experienced them through sensory perception.

If I believe in telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition or

remote viewing, I will associate certain experiences with my

belief in ESP.

In our reading we are the constantly reminderd of how sensory

perceptions are influenced by the manipulation of the mind.

For example, the Gestalt principals remind us of the minds

natural tendency to force patterns. The Muller-Lyer illusion

reasons that culture plays a role in how our minds make

assumption. Something as common, to the Western World, as a

right angle can prevent us from questioning, or overriding, by

cognitive reasoning, what the mind imparts automatically.

Let’s look at an example. A person is awakened from a dream in

the middle of the night, by a noise in another room. A whole

series of physiological events take place within our body. The

sudden noise may initiate a response of fear, our vision will

not be one hundred percent and illusions are entirely possible.

On top of that, there may. possibly. be remnants of a dream in

our mind. The sudden surge of bodily heat, from the rude

awakening, causes a shiver of cold, when throwing off the

covers. Upon further inspection, it’s discovered that a

picture of a deceased relative has fallen off the wall in the

other room, causing the noise. In a society in which

spiritual beliefs are prevalent, in our daily lives, and ESP

belief is so common that it appears in local folklore, myths

and daily in magazines and on television, it seems likely that

this prior “knowledge” combined with current beliefs will

influence the analysis of the whole situation. Included in

this analysis, of course, will be the explanations the mind

automatically produces, sometime as closure, or as culturally

expected, a consequence of the actual sensory perceptions

experienced.

By the next morning the person involved may explain the nights’

events as a haunting, or a warning, and may even link remnants

of a dream with precognition or alien abduction or whatever

will provide an explanation that will comply with their

beliefs. In a previous chapter we learned about how false

memories can be formed. In this case the memories that are

recalled, by morning, have suddenly taken fanatical shape but

are plausible enough, when beliefs are considered, to be

recognized as fact.

A rational explanation can be given for everything that just

occurred but no amount of logic can change what a person

believes, especially when the “story”, as remembered, is

recounted to others who will empathize and relate, through

similar beliefs, to the storyteller, thus providing positive

reinforcement of cultural or social norms.

Ideas and theories are often the foundation that lead to

further research. What research has ensued, with regard to ESP,

has yielded very little to support, conducting extensive

experiments in accordance with strict scientific methodology.

Unfortunately, the hit or miss research that has been done is

simply regarded as inconclusive, for those whose beliefs are

not supported by more rational and scientific explanations.

I would like to add, however, that unlike the biased influence

that belief systems can have on individuals, science is not a

closed or dogmatic belief system. Researchers and scientists

understand that there are unknowns and the nature of science

is to continue finding explanations.

Can we, totally, discount the possibility of extrasensory

perception? Questions of how the universe works can not be

answered through study of the human condition alone, nor can

the human condition be expected to be explained without the

influence of the universe on that condition. Humans are not

seperate from the universe, humans are part of the whole and

we have much to learn."


WOW, did I do it, huh, did I, did I manage to create a post as long as the OP??????


OH MY GOD!

I know what you mean there. Being in the forums often seems like Alice in Wonderland. The talking walls are like a soldiers made of cards. They tumble over so easily like dominos that have no weight, but in a surrealistic nature they continue to debate.



One thing about extrasensory perception is that there may very well be phenomenon in this universe that can be perceived via a sense that we may not even be currently aware that we have!

Today we are aware of four ‘forces’ in this universe, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. However, that doesn’t mean that’s all there is. It simply means that’s all we know about, and all we need to know about to explain all of the physics that we are currently aware of.

One thing that amazes me that often people talk like as if they thing that physics, or even mathematics, if finished, or completely known. Neither is true.

On the contrary, we have reason to believe that two new phenomenon may exist in the universe. One is called Dark Matter, and the other is called Dark Energy. They are only called ‘Dark’, in the sense that we have no way of perceive them directly. We believe they exist because they are implied indirectly by other things we know. It’s kind of liking when you see a shadow you automatically know that something must be causing it because you understand something about light. In a similar way we can see the ‘shadows’ of Dark Energy and Dark Matter via other things we know something about.

In any case, it is quite possible that if these phenomenon actually do exist then we may indeed be able to perceive them through some type of physical senses that we weren’t even aware that we have. The sensory ‘organ’ may be the brain itself. Or potentially we may actually have senor ‘fields’ that we project and aren’t even aware of it. We may be able to sense thing similar to radar or sonar like used by a bat, only instead of using electromagnetic fields, or sound waves, we may actually being using this Dark Energy and not even know it.

Again, the name ‘Dark’ was given to this stuff by physicist simply to be “imperceptible by normal senses”. There is nothing inherently ‘Dark’ about it, neither in color, not in spirit (i.e. it’s not the ‘dark side of the force’).

On the contrary it could very well be the embodiment of the “Holy Spirit” itself. Of course, that’s pure speculation, but if the Holy Spirit actually exists then why shouldn’t its presence be detectable? After all, it is completely undetectable, then would constitute its ‘existence’. Something that cannot be detected ever, cannot be said to ‘exist’.

If ‘God’ can affect our emotions, then ‘God’ is detectable. Anything that can interact with the physical world must necessarily be detectable by that very interaction.

Yes, Abra, I agree with this. Of course I had to submit my homework in a, somewhat, abridged form as I'm expected to know ONLY as much as we've read. Since I knew we were supposed to come to the "logical" conclusion that ESP is not scientifically proven and so far can be explained, that is what I did.

I so dislike having to be a martyr for a GRADE! So in my dissertation, after accomplishing the requirements of the assignment, I made sure to indicate that we still have much to learn.

Redy,

You declare yourself God at the least and to end all strife with your wit at best! How delicious.

You suppose on MY post that belief and interpretation of the law in question is required for comprehension, though tendered amiss. Whereas any acknowledgement I've made of said law's veracity must first be tested by the will of the engaged hearer of said law to refute or prove its own immutability in practice, it must then be shown not to be immutable through overcoming it without. An atheist has proved it in the confession that one is an atheist.There is no other God before Him in your definition of yourself.
Such as you profess to be, and such a dismissive oversight in engendering prior belief requisite upon said law is oxymoronic on your part and not believable from your dissertation of the finer points of learned discipline engaged upon your own predilections considered on your own estimations of yourself.

I know you from your own words which are many and your remarks are excused.


Perhaps putting the cart before the horse is palpable for you to do, but the cart is pulled by a human and not for the horses' sake.

I am speaking to you in this tone in like answer to your own which has engaged me in your assumptions pertaining to the dialogue of this thread as a whole and in part containing succinct remarks from me to further the self contained proof of certain laws held in high esteem within the text in question.

Perhaps you may choose to entertain yourself in another way without entering me into your contemptuous and disengenuous intentions at further length would you to continue expounding on your contemplative thesis on human nature from your perspective, which is your right; as is mine to not be entwined spuriously and with suppositional prejudices familiar to you and known to me and acknowledged by both of us to clearly miss the mark, historically speaking, between you and I.

Sometimes, my friend, you make it extremely difficult and burdensome to show you the mutual respect and dignity due you when your heart speaks so cavalierly of mine.

I had thought we had grown out of that and understood each other as respectfully aware of our differences and respectfully considerate of one another sufficient not to purloin one anothers' motives.

I stand in admiration of your collective reasoning and judgement, but critical of the assumption you have purposed on my person; and to that end, my rebuttal of your poignant remarks has found tender due.

Upon reflection, you shall find that I made no distinctions about prior belief or interpretation concerning the spiritual law penned "you shall have no other gods before me."

Surely you have not done so, unless your your signet, OH MY GOD! was in jest.

respectfully, as always...

wouldee

Hi Wouldee,

Mischief, maybe - maybe not? What irritates me is that there is a WORD "Christianity" and the word is a "one size fits all" label, in many ways.

Within these posts there are an abundance of examples of "Christian support". Such support lends credence to the words of those being supported.

When one "Christian" declares that it is only through the Holy Spirit that one can interpret and understand the bible and many other Christians herald a supportive "amen" in agreement; furture words, of 'those', supporting such previous testimony become fair game.

Obviously, one can belive, without scripture.
But those whose beliefs, require the bible to understand and continue that belief are out of line. There is no logic or rational thinking applied in thier statements and yet they continue to be 'supported' by other Christians.

Ultimately, what ensues, is offence taken, by those whose past support, ingratiated thier being "lumped" into the one size fits all label. In other words as part of "THE CLUB".

That's what irritates me! Sometimes it makes me feel better to the irritant rather than than the irritated.

In the end, I'm always sorry for allowing my emotions to dictate my actions.

But I have a safety net, you know, "Christian forgiveness!"

I find myself no less right or wrong, in my actions, than anyone else. I don't need god in my life to know that 'forgiveness' is a good thing. What is better, though, is 'evaluating, undertanding, and attempting to be logical and rational, before one speaks and BEFORE, the last resort, 'forgiveness' is needed.

Not every Christian believes the same things, I know that, what I will never understand is why the CLUB mentality exists.

No matter how hard I've tried to oblige those Christians who feel 'discriminated' against or who feel imposed upon for being "type cast" with regards to beleifs, in the end it is the Christians who force the segregation of the religion into a "club mentality".

Other things have been irritateing me in these topics, of late, as well. Among them are those who interrupt a serious, more phylisophical conversation, with the "WELL, I BELEIVE". Without any thoughtful consideration into the nature of the conversation. All one need write (if they feel they must be heard) is one sentance "I'm a Christian" and the rest of their philosophy can be implied. OK- PARTY HEARD FROM. and the rest the discussion can go on.

Many of us have been here long enough to know the others. We KNOW who to ignore, yet there is RELENTLESS chiding and accusations. (not just Christians,you know, but all add to my irritation)



Humor, Wouldee, yes - the humor that comes from a full cup of irritation. For me, sarcasm, is the humor I use to talk myself back down - to pour out the excess from the full cup.

SOMEDAY - I'm going to learn to say (all the above) instead of being a sarcastic irritation. Or maybe not. Compared to some, it's not a bad vice, but,admittedly, a vice non-the-less.

I should have stuck to my homework tonight, where the irritations are my own indulgences and weaknesses, and I have only my own shortcomings to blame.

That’s the way it should be after 2000 years. But unfortunately there are still those who think that if a person isn’t a “Christian” then they don’t understand what “Christians” believe.

It’s the ultimate insult implying that only people who believe something can understand it. If you don’t believe it then clearly you don’t understand it.

That kind of mentally implies that if you’re weren’t an innately born Christian gifted with belief then it would be impossible to obtain a belief later in life because without belief you can’t understand it, and if you can’t understand they you can’t believe it. However, people never follow their own logic to the ultimate conclusions like that. They only follow it superficially far enough to support their own agendas.



The only people who claim that are the one’s who are attempting to use the weight of the masses to PUSH their agenda.

In truth, no one should ever be trying to PUSH the religion onto anyone in the first place. It doesn’t say to do that anywhere in the Bible. Jesus himself specifically stated to drop it if other’s aren’t interested in hearing it. He also state that not all men need a physician. Clearly he didn’t not believe that all men are sinners, nor did he believe that it is important that all men hare his message. Clearly the message was only for those who need redemption.

Christ’s message was for sinners. It’s not for the Righteous. Jesus made that perfectly clear in his own words if the Bible is to be believed.

So the endless proselytzing is unwarranted. It only shows a gross misunderstanding of the religion itself.

Proof?

Or a really cool way of justifying that which needs to be truth?

Would be pretty silly being a staunch believer in a religion that couldn't be justified by oneself as fact, wouldn't it?

Still doesn't make it real though...only a justified myth, with explanations as to how it MUST be real, or I would look silly.

Feral, Britty, Two of my favorite Soldiers in Christ. I wish you could take my arms and we could walk this morning but I have many things to do. Love your posts, Good job.

You ladies are blessed by good works

and we are on the side that wins