I believe in Jesus again

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, end3 said:

Dear Heavenly Father.....I'm praying for my re-newed brother Dude, that he might find Grace for this person.  Amen....pass the plate while we sing verses 1,2, and 4 of #702, I am Thine O Lord...

 

 

End. Ive said this before, but really you should just de-convert and own it. 

You dont seem to take your own religion seriously. 

 

Maybe you already did and I missed it. If so my appologies. 

[Guest end3]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

End. Ive said this before, but really you should just de-convert and own it. 

You dont seem to take your own religion seriously. 

 

Maybe you already did and I missed it. If so my appologies. 

I understand Jeff, thanks.  I have my doubts regularly, but at the core, I still believe and probably always will.  A sense of humor about that I think is more rational than not.  I could have mocked the Spirit and much more in this post but chose not to.  You are observant.  Everyone here will be the first to know and I will confer long before I make a decision.  Thanks again.

[TruthSeeker0]

48 minutes ago, end3 said:

I understand Jeff, thanks.  I have my doubts regularly, but at the core, I still believe and probably always will.  A sense of humor about that I think is more rational than not.  I could have mocked the Spirit and much more in this post but chose not to.  You are observant.  Everyone here will be the first to know and I will confer long before I make a decision.  Thanks again.

What is it, at the end of the day, that keeps you there? @end3 Fear of hell? Or not being able to face non existence?

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

What is it, at the end of the day, that keeps you there? @end3 Fear of hell? Or not being able to face non existence?

I'll be brutally honest TS....although I'm sure it will sound arrogant.

It's reading the Bible and feeling like I know what it's saying... discernment. 

Feeling "at home" when I'm in church......unfortunately and against scripture, not at home with most of the people in church, but only some...

Loving the feeling, the power, of many people singing together.

When I used to do children's sermons, there were times I didn't have a unique, good message for the children.....but was always given one prior to church. 

Listening to hymns and feeling a connection. 

And a strength I can't seem to derive any other way than through these aforementioned connections.

 

I should go back....haven't really been since I divorced several years ago.  One of the elders was a pig in elder clothing.....and the evangelical crowd with their egos...the Christianeze, i.e. the fundamental crowd...  Part of it's probably my own issues, but I'd rather find fault with the hypocrisy than go along.

 

And there have been a couple peak experiences where I felt the thoughts that came into my mind could have not been derived though my mind.  And believe it or not, they were more words of admonishment of my life than some huge love connection.  It did seem though like a connection to something infinite basically.....no mental picture or boundaries to the delivered messages.....was a walk to Emmaus retreat/weekend.  Perhaps those things are designed to create emotions, idk. 

 

So you will know the  most prominent message, it was, "when you hurt others, you are hurting Me".  Trust me, that was not from me.  I wallow in taking people down....ask anyone here...lol.

 

Thanks for the note.

[TruthSeeker0]

48 minutes ago, end3 said:

I'll be brutally honest TS....although I'm sure it will sound arrogant.

It's reading the Bible and feeling like I know what it's saying... discernment. 

Feeling "at home" when I'm in church......unfortunately and against scripture, not at home with most of the people in church, but only some...

Loving the feeling, the power, of many people singing together.

When I used to do children's sermons, there were times I didn't have a unique, good message for the children.....but was always given one prior to church. 

Listening to hymns and feeling a connection. 

And a strength I can't seem to derive any other way than through these aforementioned connections.

 

I should go back....haven't really been since I divorced several years ago.  One of the elders was a pig in elder clothing.....and the evangelical crowd with their egos...the Christianeze, i.e. the fundamental crowd...  Part of it's probably my own issues, but I'd rather find fault with the hypocrisy than go along.

 

And there have been a couple peak experiences where I felt the thoughts that came into my mind could have not been derived though my mind.  And believe it or not, they were more words of admonishment of my life than some huge love connection.  It did seem though like a connection to something infinite basically.....no mental picture or boundaries to the delivered messages.....was a walk to Emmaus retreat/weekend.  Perhaps those things are designed to create emotions, idk. 

 

So you will know the  most prominent message, it was, "when you hurt others, you are hurting Me".  Trust me, that was not from me.  I wallow in taking people down....ask anyone here...lol.

 

Thanks for the note.

There doesn't have to be anything religious about having personal insights like that, particularly if it's in an environment that is conducive and supportive of such. If you ask me, that was just your inner morality telling you that hurting people isn't exactly the most correct approach to life you can take. (ie you didn't need god to know that). In my former fundamentalist life, I would have taken that as my conscience speaking.

 

It's strange, how I hear the argument that now my conscience is dead, and I've given way to a lavish life of sin, and being mislead by the devil. I have more compassion and empathy and genuine desire to help other people than I ever did as a Christian. Strange, that.

 

I was driven away by the hypocrisy, among other things. The egocentricity of some people is simply astounding.
 

I sometimes miss the community, in particular the singing. But there are other ways of finding community, and I was always a social misfit in my church and struggled to feel like I belong, so leaving was a relief.

 

Have you read the whole bible? Or do you just pick the comforting parts that resonate? I finally decided it was time to read the whole thing. What a can of worms that opened, lol.

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

There is a difference between water buffaloes and buffaloes.  Surely you realize this.  I don't want to say you were being dishonest in your post; I'll stop at simply disingenuous.

 

Really, your argument is reduced to this?  And don't call me Shirley.

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Actually, I can.  Because elephants actually exist.  They exist by every standard of science.  They can be examined, studied, even ridden upon.  They are, quite literally, everything that spirits are not.  You can say that spirits exist in the mind; so do elephants.  The difference is that elephants still roam the earth whether I am thinking about them or not.

 

Elephants exist by every standard of science. That's true, but does Science™ have a standard by which to study spirits?

 

If Science™ doesn't think spirits are real, it won't go looking and I don't think it ever has. So science isn't where one would expect to find the answers about spirits, right?

 

Nonetheless, both elephants and spirits made their way into religion. Maybe you and VerbosityCat  are correct and it is because of environment, but that just reinforces my point that spirits must exist in the environment around us.

 

[duderonomy]

7 hours ago, end3 said:

Dear Heavenly Father.....I'm praying for my re-newed brother Dude, that he might find Grace for this person.  Amen....pass the plate while we sing verses 1,2, and 4 of #702, I am Thine O Lord...

 

 

 

Thanks for the prayer, brother End3.  I must say that your sincere prayer has already been partially answered! 

I have grace for that person. It will still be a cold day in Hell though when I'll have a relationship with her if she's going to be so pissy at the drop of a sandal. 

 

I know you were joking about passing the plate, but you know that no pastor is going to pass the plate while the congregation is holding hymnals and singing and wondering "what's wrong with verse three? Why not verse three?".  

[Guest end3]

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Thanks for the prayer, brother End3.  I must say that your sincere prayer has already been partially answered! 

I have grace for that person. It will still be a cold day in Hell though when I'll have a relationship with her if she's going to be so pissy at the drop of a sandal. 

 

I know you were joking about passing the plate, but you know that no pastor is going to pass the plate while the congregation is holding hymnals and singing and wondering "what's wrong with verse three? Why not verse three?".  

Ahh, you HAVE been out for a while.  We don't sing vs. 3 on any songs so we can get out of church early and get to the restaurants before the Baptists.  I'll continue to pray.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Really, your argument is reduced to this?  And don't call me Shirley.

No.  My correction of your disingenuous attempt to shoe-horn water buffaloes into a discussion about buffaloes is reduced to this.  You complain that my argument would offend a 7-year-old, then feign the understanding of someone much younger.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Elephants exist by every standard of science. That's true, but does Science™ have a standard by which to study spirits?

 

If Science™ doesn't think spirits are real, it won't go looking and I don't think it ever has. So science isn't where one would expect to find the answers about spirits, right?

 

Nonetheless, both elephants and spirits made their way into religion. Maybe you and VerbosityCat  are correct and it is because of environment, but that just reinforces my point that spirits must exist in the environment around us.

 

Science has attempted to study spirits, actually, which a simple google search confirms. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+research+demonstrates+the+existence+of+spirits&oq=scientific+research+demonstrates+the+existence+of+spirits&aqs=chrome..69i57.23168j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

And, imagine my surprise, there has been NO conclusive evidence to point to the existence of anything beyond the physical realm.

 

But, simply because something made its way into religion doesn't confirm it is real or it exists.  You know what also made its way into religion?  Transubstantiation.  The literal turning of bread and wine into the body and blood of jesus.  The problem is, there is zero confirmed evidence that the body and blood of a historical jesus ever actually existed.  And I can guarantee you that a simple DNA test on said bread and wine might confirm the existence of the priest and anybody else who may have touched it; but it still won't confirm the existence of jesus.

 

Golden plates also made their way into religion.  Odd thing, nobody ever saw them.  Except, maybe, Joseph Smith; but we only have his word to go on.  And he died with his secret along with him.  Yet they made their way into religion.  Is that the only standard you need in order to believe something exists?  If so, I've got a bridge in New York, I'd like to sell you.

[Guest end3]

51 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Science has attempted to study spirits, actually, which a simple google search confirms. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+research+demonstrates+the+existence+of+spirits&oq=scientific+research+demonstrates+the+existence+of+spirits&aqs=chrome..69i57.23168j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

And, imagine my surprise, there has been NO conclusive evidence to point to the existence of anything beyond the physical realm.

 

But, simply because something made its way into religion doesn't confirm it is real or it exists.  You know what also made its way into religion?  Transubstantiation.  The literal turning of bread and wine into the body and blood of jesus.  The problem is, there is zero confirmed evidence that the body and blood of a historical jesus ever actually existed.  And I can guarantee you that a simple DNA test on said bread and wine might confirm the existence of the priest and anybody else who may have touched it; but it still won't confirm the existence of jesus.

 

Golden plates also made their way into religion.  Odd thing, nobody ever saw them.  Except, maybe, Joseph Smith; but we only have his word to go on.  And he died with his secret along with him.  Yet they made their way into religion.  Is that the only standard you need in order to believe something exists?  If so, I've got a bridge in New York, I'd like to sell you.

Pretty assumptive there Prof.  Just because science studied something doesn't mean the had the capability to study something. 

[Guest end3]

Wasn't some forms of elephant communication not recognized until the mid '80s.  Perhaps elephants knew they could communicate before science knew.  The ego, the EGOOOOOOOO I tell you, a, fucking, stounds me.....  and it's only Monday. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, end3 said:

Pretty assumptive there Prof.  Just because science studied something doesn't mean the had the capability to study something. 

How, exactly, is it assumptive?  I never claimed science could study spirits; I merely provided the results of a Google search that demonstrates what research has been attempted by science.  How is that assumptive?  How?

[Guest end3]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How, exactly, is it assumptive?  I never claimed science could study spirits; I merely provided the results of a Google search that demonstrates what research has been attempted by science.  How is that assumptive?  How?

It was the line...."Imagine, to my surprise....there has been NO conclusive..."  Your tone came off as definitive.  No biggie, just messin with you as you were beating on my new brother...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 minutes ago, end3 said:

It was the line...."Imagine, to my surprise....there has been NO conclusive..."  Your tone came off as definitive.  No biggie, just messin with you as you were beating on my new brother...

Umm... there has been no conclusive evidence for the existence of spirits.  That is neither assumptive, nor is it definitive; as science always leaves room for new evidence, upon which new hypotheses might be based.  You know this, End3.

[Guest end3]

27 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

  That is neither assumptive, nor is it definitive

Thanks, no further questions.  (You see what I did there S?  Practicing to be a lawyer prick like you)

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  My correction of your disingenuous attempt to shoe-horn water buffaloes into a discussion about buffaloes is reduced to this.  You complain that my argument would offend a 7-year-old, then feign the understanding of someone much younger.

 

I tried to shoe-horn what into a discussion about what? 

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Science has attempted to study spirits, actually, which a simple google search confirms. 

 

The link you provided showed nothing. I could use it to 'show' that I am correct just as quickly as you could use it to show that you are correct. Useless stuff.

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

[Snipped]...

 

And, imagine my surprise, there has been NO conclusive evidence to point to the existence of anything beyond the physical realm.

 

But, simply because something made its way into religion doesn't confirm it is real or it exists.  You know what also made its way into religion?  Transubstantiation.  The literal turning of bread and wine into the body and blood of jesus.  The problem is, there is zero confirmed evidence that the body and blood of a historical jesus ever actually existed.  And I can guarantee you that a simple DNA test on said bread and wine might confirm the existence of the priest and anybody else who may have touched it; but it still won't confirm the existence of jesus.

 

Golden plates also made their way into religion.  Odd thing, nobody ever saw them.  Except, maybe, Joseph Smith; but we only have his word to go on.  And he died with his secret along with him.  Yet they made their way into religion.  Is that the only standard you need in order to believe something exists?  If so, I've got a bridge in New York, I'd like to sell you.

 

Sorry Prof, I should have just quoted your post all at once. But anyway...

 

Which instruments and which experiments did science use in order to show that they didn't find anything non-physical?  That is, beyond the physical instruments and the physical experiments they used to try to find something that isn't physical of course.

 

You must realize that many things 'make their way' into religions and beliefs, right?  So that discredits everything? How many silly ideas or things make their way into the realms of science, and do those things then discredit the whole of science?

 

So again, how is it that a field of study that only studies the physical is equipped or thinks they are qualified to be an authority on subjects that are admittedly not physical? and...

 

How is it that goofy things that make their way into religion discredit all of religion if goofy logical fallacies that make their way into arguments don't discredit all of logic, or goofy ideas that make their way into science don't discredit all of science? 

 

Of course, either way we were talking about religions coming from environments. We could argue about buffalo or golden plates or DNA tests on Catholic crackers, but none of that will change the fact that if religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.

That was my answer to you-know-who and you jumped in. Now you-know-who backed out while taking faux umbrage and here you are probably thinking you are stuck and you have to keep responding.  

 

If you want to let this go Prof, I'm fine with that or we could go on, but let me repeat:  If religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.

[midniterider]

RNP: And I can guarantee you that a simple DNA test on said bread and wine might confirm the existence of the priest and anybody else who may have touched it; but it still won't confirm the existence of jesus.

 

.........

 

Should we rely on the claim of what 'might' be ... or on the actual evidence obtained by an actual DNA test?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

The link you provided showed nothing. I could use it to 'show' that I am correct just as quickly as you could use it to show that you are correct. Useless stuff.

Perhaps the reason it showed nothing is precisely because there is nothing to show.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Sorry Prof, I should have just quoted your post all at once. But anyway...

 

Which instruments and which experiments did science use in order to show that they didn't find anything non-physical?  That is, beyond the physical instruments and the physical experiments they used to try to find something that isn't physical of course.

 

You must realize that many things 'make their way' into religions and beliefs, right?  So that discredits everything? How many silly ideas or things make their way into the realms of science, and do those things then discredit the whole of science?

 

So again, how is it that a field of study that only studies the physical is equipped or thinks they are qualified to be an authority on subjects that are admittedly not physical? and...

 

How is it that goofy things that make their way into religion discredit all of religion if goofy logical fallacies that make their way into arguments don't discredit all of logic, or goofy ideas that make their way into science don't discredit all of science? 

 

Of course, either way we were talking about religions coming from environments. We could argue about buffalo or golden plates or DNA tests on Catholic crackers, but none of that will change the fact that if religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.

That was my answer to you-know-who and you jumped in. Now you-know-who backed out while taking faux umbrage and here you are probably thinking you are stuck and you have to keep responding.  

 

If you want to let this go Prof, I'm fine with that or we could go on, but let me repeat:  If religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.

Have it your way, dude.  But I think you're trying to make a connection that simply isn't there.  I've attempted to show that just because something shows up in religion doesn't automatically mean that thing exists, whether environmental or not.  If you'd rather believe in spirits than reality, that's your affair. 

 

However, as im sure you know, the onus is on you to substantiate your claim.  It is not enough for you to simply refuse to accept arguments to the contrary.  And, if your logic dictates that anything, however ridiculous, that made its way into religion should not be immediately discounted, then I expect you should also support the idea that snakes were once capable of speech, and that magical fruit once had the ability to rob an entire species of its innocence.   

 

It should also be noted that many cultures, in many environments, have also believed in dragons, unicorns, and sea monsters.  The science supporting the existence of any of these is as weak and, in your words, "useless" as that which demonstrates that spirits exist.  But, people believed it, so it must be true.

 

And that is really the crux of your argument, here.  People believed in spirits, so they must exist.  The problem is: that is neither sound, nor is it safe, reasoning.  I sincerely hope you can see where such logic can lead.  History bears plenty enough examples of tragedy and horror derived from people equating belief with reality.

 

Each to his own, though.  So if you would like to continue down this rabbit hole, please start by supporting your claim that something exists simply because people believe in it.  Then substantiate how that claim relates to spirits.  And finally, demonstrate how said spirits are particular to the christian faith.  That, I think, will be sufficient to put paid to any and all of your detractors and neatly wrap up this entire debacle.  It's an uphill battle for you that will require a lot of patience and dedication; but I'll gladly wait.

 

Have a good day.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 hours ago, duderonomy said:

If religions are based on what is in the environment, and many religions believe in various and sundry spirits, then various and sundry spirits must exist in those environments.

 

Are religions based on what is in the environment? Animalistic religions certainly are. Thor et al was based on the idea of a thunder god. 

 

Or is the case that religions believe in spirits but this is not based on what is in the environment? Or did humans makes gods then given them attributes to try and explain things? Back to Thor, was he based on thunder, or was he created and as an explanatory attribute said that he created the thunder?

[LogicalFallacy]

On 10/29/2018 at 4:24 PM, duderonomy said:

 

Elephants exist by every standard of science. That's true, but does Science™ have a standard by which to study spirits?

 

If Science™ doesn't think spirits are real, it won't go looking and I don't think it ever has. So science isn't where one would expect to find the answers about spirits, right?

 

Nonetheless, both elephants and spirits made their way into religion. Maybe you and VerbosityCat  are correct and it is because of environment, but that just reinforces my point that spirits must exist in the environment around us.

 

 

When you talk about existence, what do you mean? We can talk about my thoughts 'existing' but in the usual sense of what we mean by 'exist' they don't. (Or do they?... we can pick up brain activity during thoughts... hmmm)

 

If something is immaterial does it even exist? Is a spirit a disembodied mind? How then does the mind function absent a physical body? That's the question I thought about when contemplating life after death. Absent physical brain function we no longer 'exist'. In fact during certain medical procedures the brain can change so much that whoever the person was before can no longer be called that person after the procedure. When you conduct a certain operation that separates the two brain halves you end up with one physical body but two distinct persons existing.