Was just reading about the steps being taken by the county clerk in Kentucky, after having gotten out of jail, to avoid her having to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Personally I think she is more concerned about keeping her pay coming in than in whether someone can get a marriage license.

Personally I don't call two persons of the same sex living together a marriage but I do believe when someone takes a job that they meet the requirements of the job. If she really believes what she says she does she would quit. Since she hasn't, money has to be the motivating factor.

Wonder if the judge will get tired of her crap and throw her back in jail for contempt.

Jim

Couple hundred years of sister wives and now kentuck is worried about who's bedding up?

Well, there's little doubt she's inbred...


The ugly bitch doesnt have a clue about 'religious conviction' or she would've quit her job and used the free time to attempt to get the law changed.

Just another dumb hillbilly that enjoys the govt that pays her and pays for her upcoming retirement, but refuses to do the simple idiotic tasks set forth in that guvmint job requirement.

She's really starting to annoy me.

Did someine say that these brothers are Canadian?

And your stupidity is beginning to annoy the entire forum.

Kentucky law does not allow the issuance of marriage licenses to queers:

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;

So, following the law, she has no legal authority to issue a license to the militant queer a$$holes who are demanding one.

Govt bureaucrats should be just as happy behind bars as not.
Either way it's all free.

Maybe if she's smart (fat chance) she'll start advocating for "homosexual Holy matrimony".

When you use the correct terms you make people stop and think.

And if that suggestion doesn't change things, throw her back to her brothers.

I guess you missed the part where the courts ruled that law unconstitutional. That law no longer exists.

So, JMR, what law allows her to issue licenses to queers?

Perhaps God's law; he made them that way. Homosexuality is not a choice, it's a condition that's formed at birth.

No more than a person preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla is genetic, moron.

But that's an argument for someone way more intelligent than you.

What Kentucky law, now that they have none due to the majority of our traitorous supreme court, allows this clerk to issue a marriage license to queers?

so, why exactly was she jailed?

You may not know it, but she is obeying the state law. Since when is it against the law to obey your state's laws? You know if she was a Muzzie she would be home free. What law is she braking? This country is really messed up.

Not so.

Your ignorance on the subject leads to some irrational conclusions.

Here are two:





FACT:
Davis, a Democrat, won a 2014 election for Rowan County clerk handily — 53 percent to 46 percent.

Why should she quit? She was elected. Let the voters fire her.

Here, here - that's an interesting view. Would you care to provide some clear substantiation of your comments

That law was ruled unconstitutional.
Try to keep up with reality instead of sticking with the fake religious BS

Ahhh I see, kinda like liberalism.

She's not "obeying state law" no matter how many times that fantasy is repeated. That law no longer exists.

So you are not in favor of civil disobedience?

I guess you would willing comply to the proposed Assualt Weapons ban had it passed. Maybe even turned in your neighbors, and opposed elected officials who refused to enforce it?

A few weeks ago I heard about a study of hundreds of genetic twins. Six percent turned out to be homosexual when the other one wasn't. Doesn't sound like they were born that way based on science. But on the 'fire facts don't matter much.

No, apperently bully tactics trump facts when ones personal ideology is challenged.

Well Snyper for brains, what law is she supposed to follow?

Her authority to act is derived from state statute.

The former law was invalidated, so there is no law that allows her to issue a license. Even an idiot like you was able to figure that out.

So, she has no authority to issue anything.

That's the problem with you liberal a$$holes........ you say she can't follow the "bad" law, but doesn't have to follow any other.

What Kentucky law, that has not been invalidated, authorizes her to issue a license?

This pic was posted quite often on another site years ago..

these are two twin brothers from Michigan actually... The U.P. IRRC....

think they both died sometime in the 50s...

That law didn't authorize her to issue any license.

It prevented her from issuing to same sex couples.

She's not even being asked to issue anything anymore.

She's being TOLD to mind her own business and let her Deputy Clerks do their jobs.

I'm surprised one as intelligent as you claim to be can't understand these simple facts

And she's has not instructed her Deputy Clerks not to issue liscens. She is asking for reasonalbe accomindation that her name not appear on the liscense.

Is that somnething you missed...or just ignored?

Don't claim to be intelligent. Just not as stupid as you.

If she's not being asked to issue anything anymore, there's no problem, right?

But of course even you're not *that* stupid.

Queers want her to issue licenses.

She has no authority to do so.

Neither do her "Deputy Clerks".

Either state what Kentucky law, that has not been invalidated by a majority of the Supreme Mullahs, gives her the authority to issue licenses to queers, or admit you're a fool.

(Insert theme from "Jeopardy" here. Hope it's on a long loop)

She went to jail for not allowing them to issue any licenses. Her name was removed before she was released, and she is not being asked to sign any of them anymore, so any talk about "no laws allow her to issue a license" is just ignorant rambling.

She went to jail rather than follow an unlawful order, you idiot.

But, assuming a person is as stupid as you, if going to jail proves her actions are invalid, then the fact she's out now proves her actions in not issuing licenses to queers is valid and proper.

One non-sequitur deserves another, don't you think?

You've not stated under what law she is authorized to issue licenses to queers, so it's obvious you concede the fact that she has none.

Time to Snyper, or get off the pot: State the law which allows the clerk to issue licenses to queers, or admit there is none, and the liberals lose.

She has the authority, as do all her Deputies, and they have in fact been issuing them.

The only portion of the law ruled invalid was the prohibition on same sex marriages, so nothing else changed.

If you'd spend just a fraction of the time thinking about the facts that you do on your childish name-calling, you too could grasp the concept.

It's "Christians" like you that give religion a bad reputation, since it's clear you don't really follow it, but you think others should

So, your argument is that she has the authority because *you* say she does?

You're apparently too dense to grasp the fact that negating the prohibition does NOT enable the authority.

In other words, the Supreme Mullahs can invalidate a law, but not make a new one.

Maybe if you put your entire post in bold it might not look so moronic. Give it a try. And if that doesn't work (it won't), use all caps.

I don't really care one way or another about the marrying ways of gays in Tennessee or whatnot. What I do wonder about however, is why the government seems intent on 'vanishing' some state laws like the gay marrying thing, yet they do nothing about states legalizing dope?

You probably ought to pull the statute and read the severability clause. Ky like most states also is likely to have a general severability statute.

BS, the government is constantly making concessions for atheist and Muslims, just not for Christians.

Thats what child molesters claim (god made them that way).

Doesn't matter, they aren't desirable.

You can hide anything behind that "God made me this way"bullshit.Women that have sex with dogs or men that screw pigs.I dont care one way or the other what people do just keep it away from me and mine.Understand Im likely to tell you how f^$ked you are,deal with it.

Actually I did answer that, but evidently you can't seem to figure it out. There's little point in my repeating myself, when you can scroll back and read it again.

Davis is the one who has lost

Again, you seem confused, since nothing changed about her office's "authority" to issue a license other than the fact she cannot CHOOSE who can have one.

Even you should be able to understand that, since licenses are being issued, whether you like it or not.

The drug legalization laws aren't discriminating against anyone, and the different marriage laws were.

BOY ARE YOU OUT TO FFCKING LUNCH .. LIKE HEII HE MADE THEM THAT WAY , THE BIBLE PROHIBITS HOMOSEXUALITY..

Not true, bruinruin and I are still alive and doing well..........

It prohibits judging others, and using profanity too, but the pretend christians here like to ignore all that.

Doesn't the bible say God made everything?

Is she conflicted when two gay men come to her for a marriage license but they are cousins?

laffin'

Some of em' excel at cherry pickin'.

That's weak. More like seventh grade logic, don't you think?

djs -- some substantiation ???

I don't know what these tards who are demanding she "do her job" don't get about this issue. What you wrote is pretty clear.

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=8&v=FtNICE-4H_M[/video]

That is totally ignorant. Even homosexual professors who study homosexuality don't believe that. Like this lesbian professor -
https://medium.com/matter/we-ve-got-gender-all-wrong-dc7a7a6a2809

I'm trying to keep things on a level they can understand, but the statement is factual at all levels.

Not so.

Homosexual activity is not a thing.

Homosexual activity begins as a thought, which becomes a desire, which becomes an intent, which becomes an action...which becomes a thought...

God made all things...homosexual behavior is not a thing.

And for the record...while we are being factual...at all levels:

God did not make airplanes
God did not make the atomic bomb
God did not make the bicycle

I could go on, but perhaps you get the idea.

GAB, I think you are wasting your time. Atheists don't understand the difference between make and create much less the difference between actions and states of being.

I do appreciate your logic, however. But the people saying God created homosexuals conveniently leave out that God created Ebola and Typhoid as well as Hitler and those "nafty homophobes".

interesting concepts

so you're saying an omnipotent God allowed airplanes, atomic bombs, the bicycle, etc.,?

as well as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes?

This type of response always amuses me.

An omnipotent God created the universe and all there is.

He created man with free will, and a brain with amazing capacity for thinking.

Man can choose to use that brain to do great good or great harm to himself and others.

I have a good idea of where you are going with this. So, before you get there, let me ask you a question?

If you question the omnipotence of God because he does not intervene in the things you suggest…would you also question the omnipotence of God because he does not intervene in all things evil (bad, destructive, ect.)?

In other words, God considers unbelief in him evil. Should he circumvent your free will and impose himself there? What about sexual sins? Should he circumvent your free will and impose himself there?

In the above examples, I am not equating God's prohibition with prevention. The question that would follow is, should God in his omnipotence actually remove your free will...and stop you and all mankind from committing such acts...and all other acts that He deems evil?

so God's will takes a back seat to free will of man?

if God is capable of stopping a man from killing another man, and he doesn't not intervene, then is it not God's will that the man commit murder?

If he is omnipotent and provides free will as a gift, then he also knows what the man who commits murder choice will be. He provides the ability to choose, yet he knows the choice you will make. Quite a paradox there.

a better answer might be that God just does not give a damn.

This is quite contrary to humanistic, materialistic, and atheistic thinking. Which boils do to the idea that man can be moral without any need of a God. And that man need to be responsible for his own action and not to a God.

You cannot have it both ways. Or can can you?

God does give man free will. God does expect man to be accountable for his actions. And God has set up the institution of government to hold man accountable. No paradox there.

In regard to free will. There could be neither good or bad without it.

so you're saying man needs God and therefore God must exist

your response doesn't address my points.

If God is all knowing , then he knows mans choices before man makes them - and if god does or does not intervene (which clearly man believes that god does intervene in some cases) then how can free will exist?

that concept has nothing to do with man and his ability to self govern or address his own morality.

Simply said, when we pray and what we pray for doesn't happen - then its God's will. If we get what we prayed for, then its God's will.

If God's will determines what happens and doesn't happen then your choices are made for you. Free will is an illusion.

Please allow me to address your points within the quote. My answers will be in bold.

Perhaps not.

simple question...

does God intervene in our daily lives

If I was the state I would just tell the FEDS we ain't issuing marriage licenses to gays, period.

Liberal states are always passing sheit that will never stand up to the courts (lots of gun things come to mind), but they do it. Knowing that it will take years of legal battles and money to overturn it.

Hell, the FEDS say NO to pot, but some states do it anyways, why not turn the [bleep] tables.

Define intervene.

intervene
ɪntəˈviːn/
verb
verb: intervene; 3rd person present: intervenes; past tense: intervened; past participle: intervened; gerund or present participle: intervening

1.
take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.

By a strict adherence to your definition, I would have to say I don't know.

If I loosely take that definition, I would say that God has and does intervene. First in giving his Word. Secondly by appealing to our concious. In both cases there is an appeal made - intervention - not a prevention nor a predetermination.

I think many Christians would say he does indeed intervene hence the phrase "the power of prayer"

but you know as well as I that direct intervention is a conflict of free will

I do not concede the point that direct intervention is in conflict of free will. To quote one passage of scripture, "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me."

Since you mentioned "Christians", the Bible is replete with examples of how God's people chose to disobey God, and God did not directly intervene in sparing them from the consequences that followed.

According to the Bible, God does intervene. In Exodus, Pharaoh is willing to let the Jewish people go, but God intervenes, and hardens Pharaoh's multiple times so he can continue raining plagues upon the Egyptian people.

We also have this little intervention called The Flood, where God murders all but 8 people on earth.

And many Christians are just waiting for the last intervention when Jesus returns to end the earth as we know it.

As for God's intervention on a daily basis, does not everything go exactly according to God's plan?

All I know is that I should be dead, a couple of times.

If its luck, than I also should have won the lottery by now.

I'll respond in the quote in bold.

Since antelope sniper doesn't acknowledge that we were created by God, and therefore his possessions to do with as He wishes, he doesn't understand that our deaths are not murder.

AS thinks everyone in history that died was murdered by God.

You can be a slave, owned by something for which you can provide no evidence for it's existence, I choose not to.

GB, You say free will does not thwart God's purpose, but does it thwart God's plan?

When God said "Let there be light.", Did he already plan to murder all except 8 people in the Great Flood?

So did God create humans such that he knew he would have to murder them all, or did he have to modify his plan due to free will?

Not true, bruinruin and I are still alive and doing well.......... [/quote]

LMAO!

It also says there is one who corrupts everything that God made.

You read one line, and rely on it, as though you know the whole book.
A more lame argument could never be concocted.

God Made Satan, and everything goes according to God's plan, so all the corruption you speak of is part of God's plan.

I'll answer within the quote in bold.

If God has foreknowledge of all that is going to happen, for the human players, yes, their destination is already determined.

As for the Ark being open to all, unless you are using a figurative, and not a literal interpretation of this story, that is just plain BS.

You can argue free will and prayer all you want. All I want to know is why God allows all those kids at St. Jude's Children hospital.

I don't see how stopping cancer in children gets in the way of free will.

Again, the concept of free will that alludes you distorts all that you conclude.

God created Satan (not how he was referred before his fall) with free will.

Of mankind, God said, "They have corrupted themselves."

You will not come close to the truth of scripture rejecting the free will of man.

Are you making a truth claim that everything goes according to God's plan? If so, please provide reference.

Answered in the quote.

God chose to make Satan the way he did, knowing what would happen. The creation of Satan was God choice. in addition, God had perfect foreknowledge of what Satan would become the great corrupter, but chose to make him in that manner anyway. God knew the consequences of his actions ahead of time, which makes him responsible for those actions.

There is no love without free will.

Then there no love of God. God threatens Hellfire for those who do not love and accept him, so any choice to do so is not free, but coerced.

This is denial in epic proportions. It is especially hypocritical from those who feel no accountability toward God...nor the need for it.

God created Satan (not his description before the fall) for a specific purpose. He also created him/her (that being is a better term) with free will. Satan chose to reject God's purpose.

God also created you for a specific purpose. If you choose to sin against the Grace of God...will you also blame God for your choice?

If you assume the atheistic position that God is not necessary for morality...that mankind can determine morality for itself...then who is to blame if you fall short of that same morality? You or God?

God commended his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

That is not coercion.

That's right.

If He wanted robots He'd have made them.

Lucifer made his choice.
Adam made his choice.
Jesus made his choice.

We all make our own choice.
Everything in life is a choice.
Every step one takes, he's a free moral agent by design.
Once created, life is simply a series of decisions.

It's so easy a child can do it...
We are not robots.

Yeah, no coercion in the Old Testament. Seems it was TOO much for people to handle, so they came up with the New Testament.


"Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."


But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." 12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

When I read some of these posts, I have a hunch that God again (and again) may be saddened to witness some strange working-out of the free will condition He bestowed on mankind. And, he also may be chuckling at the interpretive reasoning and half-baked assumptions some of us come up with due to blind overconfidence, love of self, righteous defiance, willful ignorance and/or many other factors. I do believe He has a strong sense of humor.

He said He did AWAY with the old to usher in the new.

It was a changing of covenants.
Old argument no longer applies.

Old covenant is for lesson, new is for living.
It's so much easier to just live...

Yes I feel no accountability to that which does not exist.

The "free will" you continue to ignore, is that which was, according to Christian tenants, the first step, and done with perfect foreknowledge. By extension, in the above example, Gods choice to make me as "one who could not believe", and knew it with perfect foreknowledge when he did, so yes, withing the supposed Biblical context he would be responsible, just as he was responsible for his choice to create Satan the way he did.

Of course the reality is I see no reason to believe in the existence of any gods, so it is not reasonable to blame that which does not exist.

As for the role of god(s) in morality:

Morality exists.
There is no evidence that god(s) exist
Gods(s) are not necessary for morality.

[b][/b]

Talk about cherry picking:

Revelations 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Or lets go with the works of Gentle Jesus:

John 15:6
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

So a threat to burn forever in a lake of brimstone is not a coercion?

According to Chronicles, the Law is forever:

16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

No. That is fact.

Going back to my example of the bridge being out. If I tell you the bridge is out, and that if you continue your coarse you will fall off and likely die.

Is that coercion? Or giving you the information for makeing a reasonable choice?

The facts are:
God created Hell, with perfect foreknowledge that it would be used for more then just Satan and his followers, and that he would be sending human souls to hell to suffer forever. God created the rules by which souls are sent to hell. If you translate that into English, yes, God "blew up the bridge", and tells you to worship him, or God will burn you forever.

This is equivalent to God pouring the gasoline over your head then standing next to you with a lit match while commanding you to love him, or it's "just a fact", that he will drop the match. These are the actions of a twisted psychopath, not a loving divine being.

In that instance, you are the one who blew up the bridge, Just as God created Hell.

A better analogy is the Mafia Boss Analogy.

You got a nice life here....it would be ashamed if something was to happen to it and and you spent the rest of eternity in hell. Tell you what, I got my son here, you reject all reason and believe in him and I won't burn you forever.

It's extortion, plain and simple.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went a took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Going back to vs 8. And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Why would you leave context out?

No. That is fact.

Going back to my example of the bridge being out. If I tell you the bridge is out, and that if you continue your coarse you will fall off and likely die.

Is that coercion? Or giving you the information for makeing a reasonable choice?[/quote]


Hell was created for the Devil and the fallen angles. Hell hath enlarged itself to receive those who reject Christ.

Again, what you call coercion...is just plain facts.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Further, the covenent that the passages you quoted, also called an oate...confirmed to Jacob for a law...is NOT the Law you allude to.

The covenent made with Abraham, Isaac, and confirmed with Jacob, predates the Law of Moses.

The covenent referenced by the scriptures you cite has to do with rightesness by faith. This is the same message of the New Testement.

God didn't provide a lamb for Jephthah. God accepted his daughter as a burnt offering.

You did not answer my question.

Hell was created for the Devil and the fallen angles. Hell hath enlarged itself to receive those who reject Christ.

Again, what you call coercion...is just plain facts.[/quote]

The facts are:
God created Hell, with perfect foreknowledge that it would be used for more then just Satan and his followers, and that he would be sending human souls to hell to suffer forever. God created the rules by which souls are sent to hell. If you translate that into English, yes, God "blew up the bridge", and tells you to worship him, or God will burn you forever.

This is equivalent to God pouring the gasoline over your head then standing next to you with a lit match while commanding you to love him, or it's "just a fact", that he will drop the match. These are the actions of a twisted psychopath, not a loving divine being.

Yes I did, go back and read it again.

An atheist does not exist, so I feel no accountability to such a thing. An atheist is not at all needed for a description or definition of morality.

It doesn't matter how many times you continue to make this claim, it does not make it true. In addition, in another thread, we've already established that all babies are born atheist, and religion is learned.

CCCC, lately the quality of your reasoning has become very disappointing.

Nor did God request it.

Judges 11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.

This was all Jepthah's idea...his own folly.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-6King James Version (KJV)

4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?


You really need to give citations if you are going to present Biblical passages as evidence. You are intentionally leaving out context to make a misleading point.

I did not ask you to read it again. I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Are you avoiding the question?

The facts are:
God created Hell, with perfect foreknowledge that it would be used for more then just Satan and his followers, and that he would be sending human souls to hell to suffer forever. God created the rules by which souls are sent to hell. If you translate that into English, yes, God "blew up the bridge", and tells you to worship him, or God will burn you forever.

This is equivalent to God pouring the gasoline over your head then standing next to you with a lit match while commanding you to love him, or it's "just a fact", that he will drop the match. These are the actions of a twisted psychopath, not a loving divine being. [/quote]
If you insist on that analogy, consider this, God did not blow up the bridge. Man blew up the bridge when he chose to sin against a Holy God.

God in turn built a new bridge via the sacrifice of his Son.

No matter how vehemently you insist, you cannot get away from your responsibility in the matter.
If you choose to go to Hell, it will be over the broken body of Christ.

2 Peter 3:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If you really feel that God has poured gasoline over your head and is standing next to you with a lit match...perhaps you should entertain the idea that perhaps what you feel and express is a sense of guilt toward a Holy God.

You need to read more closely.

Judges:
11:29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
11:30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
11:31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

Jephthah was infused with the spirit of the lord when he made his pledge. God chose what he wanted to come forth from Jephthah's house, and as previously noted, God choose not to alter his deal or send an angle with a lamb like he did with Abraham, and accepted this child sacrifice.

As for your quote above, it's just an admonishment to keep your pledges to God, which Jephthah did.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything against her religion.

Nobody is forcing her to do anything against her will.

But if she doesn't want to do her job, step down and show her support for her beliefs.

All she is doing right now is saying that her religious beliefs don't trump her 80k salary.

And by not stepping down she is saying that what she wants is more important than the will of the people she works for. And/or the job she swore to do.

But hey, demand that the state and the county change the laws to suit her!

But trumping her and her crazy ideas is the fact that Cruz and Huckabee are trying to use it to their advantage...


Phil

Jephtnah was infused with the Spirty or the Lord giving him courage to pass through enemy territory.

You are reading into the passage what you want... namely that God chose the nature of his vow. It is more likely that Jephtnah was requiring the same thing athiest do...exrodinary evidence that God was real. All that followed was a result of Jephtnah's unbelief. After all, Jepthanh did not benefit from a strong Biblical foundation.

There are other accounts where men requested a sign that God was speaking to them when no such sign was necessary.

So, God's plan is for everyone to make their own choice.

But if their choice doesn't meet approval from the "religious" crowd, then they are condemned for following "God's plan"?

Why does some County Clerk get to go against "God's plan" while claiming it's "God's plan" for her to do so?

Rediculous! Why should she step down, she was elected.

If you were a local Sherif (elected by the people), and a Federal Judge ordered you to confiscate all firearms. Would you step down...or wait for the people who elected you to fire you at the next election.

People run off at the mouth about what should be done about this and that. And that they won't stand for this and that. Here is a woman with more balls than most of the posters here. She is making a stand, and morons pick her apart!

What principle do you have for which you hold that has cost you jail time?

Talk is cheap!

GB, Your first statement is absurd.

The act which created the "original sin", when Eve kyped a piece of fruit, occurred before Adam and Eve possessed the knowledge of good and evil, because they had not yet eaten from that tree. God put those trees in front of Adam and Eve with full foreknowledge of what would happen.

If you had a toddler a handgun in condition 0, will full knowledge that it will blow it's head off when you do so, YOU are responsible for end result, not the toddler. By extension, God is responsible for original sin.

Of course, there is not original sin, because the Garden of Eden never existed as a literal place.

As for my "responsibility to God", I have no responsibility to that which does not exist. Just like I have no responsibility to fairies, leprechauns, Nessie, or Gus's Aliens at area 51, I have no responsibility to your Jewish/Hellenistic Greek Myth.

However, I do find it interesting how you consider this extortionist to be "Holy". I have to wonder what other organized crime figures you hold in high esteem?

You're attempting to prove "facts" by quoting from a fairy tale.

She was elected to do a job, laws are fluid and never stay the same. She's not willing to do the job and is forcing her underlings to do it for her! Fact is that she should have been fired and not given a choice.

Phil

Nothing of the sort was established in that other thread - you simply presented added rambling hypotheticals. The reasoning about the atheist is of the highest null hypothesis quality - it seems to irritate you that you have cornered yourself on the matter of proof. You have yet to offer a shred of proof that an atheist exists and, instead, desperately resort to ad hominem attack. Simply - provide proof that an atheist exists. Waiting.

You have in no way corned me with your choice to be ignorant.

People keep talking about God's plan. I would like to see some citations referrencing this plan.

God give mankind freedom to choose.

The "religious" crowd does not choose the consequenses to those choices...God does.

The institution of marriage is God's design...not the state's.

This woman is following God's teaching on an institution he ordained.

She has every right according to God's design to resist the Judges order.

You may have to make the choice yourself someday. I hope you have the guts to do it.

It is a proven fact that civial disobedience works. Try if you can to get past your "religious" bias.

I can think of several issues that I would have not problem standing with unbelivers on. I would not let pressure swage my resolve.

I would stand on common ground, and seperate on uncommon ground. I hoppe I would not let anyone drive a wedge between me and anyone who holds simular views.

Her success, wither you agree with her or not, sets good president for other issues you may want to contest in the future.

She is an elected official. She may be removed from office by due process, but she can not be fired. You really need to do more research.

Your insisting that it is a fairy tale does not make it so. I don't have to know you to choose scripture over your assurtions.

We may all have our own opinions. It does not follow that each of our opinions are correct.

It it not my intention to take away your choice, nor force you to agree with my arguments. They are provide for your amusement if you choose that route.

In most locals refusing to do your job is grounds to be fired... you all need to look it up more. Might be different in Kentucky but...

Phil

As GB stated, she is an elected official. We can no more just fire her, then we can just fire Zero. There are two ways to remove both from office, the citizens of he county can elect someone else during the next election, or she can be impeached. Those are our methods of "firing" an elected official in this country.

In reality in kentucky marriage is governed in compliance with the Kentucky Resised Statutes I.e. State law that is under the preview of the legislative branch and the executive branch. The clerk is merely issuing a license as prescribed by law and recording the event. It isn't as if the clerk is performing the ceremony or creating the institution of marriage. They are merely doing the bookkeeping that the process has been followed and that the person performing the marriage attests that they in fact preformed the ceremony. To this point I think the clerk is failing to meet her job duties and taking on a mantle that is not hers . She may not like same sex marriage but she needs to stick to keeping the records of the county and quit trying to make policy that's not her job.

GB, thanks for providing the amusement. It's preferable to another Trump vs. ICarlie thread.

As for a comparison between Christian Scripture and Fairy tales, well, this is an illustration of the level of evidence we as non-believer see for your proclaimed " The Truth".

Last time we debated it was mostly on the (lack of) evidence for the theist point of view. Today I figured it might be fun to debate some of the biblical internals and their inherent contradictions.

As I say don't know about Kentucky, but pretty sure here as an elected county official she could be fired by a vote of the County Supervisors if found she refused to do her job, and in this case even a federal judge so found! Not to mention it was a federal law she was not abiding by putting both the State and County governments in jeopardy!


Phil

I am willing to let it rest by restating your last statement:

...perceived contradictions.

I'm done with the issue. I've reached the end of my stamina for debating entrenched positions.

Think I'll spend the rest of the week getting some 223 ammo ready for the range. I have a SPS Tactical that needs some attention!

Hope you get a chance to do the same.

GB

Good luck with the SPS Tactical. I wouldn't mind owning one of those myself, my .223 efforts have focused on several AR platforms.

I hope to see some good groups, or good questions from your efforts.

There you go again grossly misquoting another person to cover the fact that you are devoid of proof. I never claimed to have cornered you - with your own manipulation and dodging you have cornered yourself, and that is what was said above. Read it again.
Yes, so "ignorant" that my simple request for proof that there is an atheist has brought you to a standstill. Absent the Biblical morsels others provide for your mastication and silly argumentation, you have nothing with which to work. It's simple AS - even for the ignorant - let's see your proof. Are you going to dodge again?

Popcorn...where is the popcorn??

PS You (or ya'll, or all ya'll) realize this started with a thread on marriage licenses?

Laws differ by state. California is pretty wacky so I don't doubt that it works that way there. In most places an elected official can only be recalled, impeached, or voted out. The will of the voters is taken seriously and no one can "fire" an elected official other than the voters. I'm sure the Kentucky Constitution lists the ways and reasons to remove an elected official from office, it should be easy enough to find online.

It's all grandstanding anyhow, both on her part and the part of the gays that want to get "married". Just go to the next county if you want a gay marriage license, it's Kentucky, the next county courthouse can't be more than 30 miles away.

Either remove her from office by due process or shut the eff up. This is America, the people are sovereign and they elected her. It's not up to some federal judge or a bunch of leftist newspapers to decide if she keeps her job. She works for the people of her county.

Kim Davis wants to force her opinions and religion on others, and you are defending her actions, and saying a book makes it "right" when it's not.

You are correct that my statements don't make it a fairy tale. That's what it is whether I say so or not, since none of it can be proven.

It's quite easy to "prove" there are atheists:

There are atheists
See how easy that was?

That's equal to the proof you have of "God", so if it's not enough, then neither is yours.

It's really not complicated.

Yes - do realize that - there is an ongoing side issue. Not really popcorn worthy.

Snyper - nice work, and I have never tried here to prove the existence of God. Am thinking that AS is not going to appreciate your comments as he/she seems to have gone to great lengths to avoid the admission you make here. P.S. There is no such thing as an atheist.

Still need a sarcasm font on this site

I like to read the arguments posted and think about them...guess it is a nerdy popcorn that I needed.

I provided you evidence with you have failed to refute.

Heck I have a little two year old atheist sitting right next to me. She can't believe is something she as of yet has no knowledge of. Religion is taught.

Added one:

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;
(e) Must have more than two front teeth!

Last I heard she's about ready to have her ass hauled back into court, maybe they'll throw away the key!

Phil

Don't matter. KY law is subordinate to the U.S. Constitution.

God is discovered by reason.

Reason that people have had for at least 8,000 years, maybe even millions if Homo naledi buried it's dead in the cave. Basically, atheist thought is on the level of monkeys.

I'll admit that's a little unfair, because it's not based on reason that atheists reject God; it's simple denial.

That's interesting.Considering how on average adult non-believers have levels of education, higher incomes, and greater knowledge of religion, once again, your statements are just not true.

You have the entire World as proof, yet you brush it off.

Ignorance, stupidity, blindness, or denial. Which is it?

The Earth is proof of the the Earth.

There's a reason your argument is called an "argument from ignorance".

Dang, I thought this was gonna be a joke about first cousins.....

And your theory that the Universe was created from ...

So you are not familiar with the current state of the Science of Cosmology?

Why is that not surprising.

What is your evidence that your preferred supernatural being created "the entire world"?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. And I understand that it boils down to an uncaused cause - just like God.

Except that you call God "nothing". You totally dismiss it. You don't even understand the implications of your own current favorite theory.

C'mon Antelope Sniper, you have provided zero evidence - only your personal arguments and, on the outside chance that you did possess some evidence, even you should be smart enough to know that evidence is not PROOF. You have shown zero PROOF.

Now, I'd bet that your little little two-year old is lovely and smart - but how on earth could you possibly know what she denies when it comes to God? Get serious - and don't dare tell a fib to that little kid.

The following is an excerpt from the book And These Signs Will Follow. Like it says in the text, I think belief in God is instinctive. This is a true story as are the other twenty-five or thirty in the book.

Shane, a seven or eight year old neighbor kid, used to come over to do ceramics. Well, actually he would play with the clay that spilled out onto the concrete where I was mixing it. Kids are great people. To facilitate mixing, I once put a motor with a three inch propeller into the fifty five gallon drum of slip. The whole area vibrated from the activity generated by the half horse power motor. It was great. The propeller must have been wired to my eyes. When I saw Shane coming, enough slip flew out of the barrel for him to form his figurines. Shane sat down and immediately involved himself in the serious business of play.

"Shane, what do you think of this?" I asked, indicating the barrel; not having any idea what a child would answer.
"It's not scarin' me, but it's scarin' my tummy.” Pretty soon he began to complain of a stomach ache. We went into the house and sat on the couch. We talked for a couple of minutes. While we were sitting there talking he put his hands on his stomach and doubled over in pain.

"Would you like me to pray for God to take away your tummy ache?" I asked.
"My dad told me there is no God," Shane said, grimacing and still bent over. Since I believe children instinctively know God Is, I asked,
"If there is a God, do you believe He could take away your tummy ache if He wanted to?"
"Yes," he said.
"Well, then do you don’t mind if I pray?" I ask.
"No," he said, “I don’t mind.” I asked the Lord Jesus Christ to heal Shane instantly so he would know Jesus cares. He quickly sat up with a big smile and said,
"Jesus cares, doesn't He!"

You keep repeating that falsehood when I've shown you the proof. It makes you look silly

Reason and logic says if something is real it's existance can be shown or proven.

Religion relies on faith alone, which has nothing to do with reason or knowledge.

There's no "denial" of something that can't be shown to exist

BS'ing a 7 year old is hardly proof of some mystical instinctive belief in God.

He probably also instinctively would agree girls have Cooties too.

If you say that the issue is simple, maybe it will come across to you in simple terms.

So -you say you are an atheist and that is supposed to be some sort of "proof". It is not - it is a profession - and a hypothesis on your part that you cannot prove becuase NO ONE other than you can know your true beliefs, positions and the standards on which you act. Others might hear what you profess and see some evidence, but neither is proof. You may prove that you exist, but you cannot prove that you - or anyone else - is an atheist.

The fact that you say there is no God - and challenge others to prove that there is - is simply the same as others saying that there is no atheist and that you are not any such thing - and challenging you to prove otherwise. Is one obligated to take your word as "proof"? Think a little bit.

I haven't challenged anyone to prove anything.
Some keep insisting there is a "God" and anyone who doesn't believe will be "punished". They believe in fantasy worlds called "heaven" and "hell" and want others to take it all seriously.

They are the ones who expect everything to be believed based on "faith" alone, so why would they question the word of someone who can actually relate what they know to be true (that they do not believe in some supreme being) VS one who can only relate what they "believe" (hope, want) to be true, based on an old book?

Once again, you are just wrong.

When a baby is born, they have only the barest of instincts, they have not yet accumulated any knowledge. As a result, we know their level of knowledge regarding religion. It's zero, nada, nil. A baby cannot believe in any god because they have not concept of religion or gods. You cannot believe in some for which you have not even formed the vaguest of concepts. As a result, all babies are atheist.

You care also an atheist toward all the thousands of gods you've never heard of. Since you know nothing of such gods, you cannot believe in their specific myths, an therefore are an atheist toward those gods.

In addition a person proclaiming their non-belief in a god is evidence for that non-belief. Of course it must be evaluated according to the standard of evidence, but such non-belief is an ordinary claim, and as a result would only require ordinary evidence. This is very different from the person making an extraordinary supernatural claim, which would of course, require extraordinary evidence.

As for your request for "proof", I've never asked you or any other theist for proof, just evidence. What you are attempting is a cheap apologetics trick of shifting the burden of proof and and the standards of evidence because you have nothing.

Once again, the evidence is on our side, and you have nothing.

The reason there are thousands of gods is because thousands of peoples know they aren't the end-all-be-all.

The understanding of God, like physics, has been an evolution. The earliest people had some ideas, but not the complete revelation, collective experience or memory to develop their ideas and observations. For example, Abraham is thought to have been born in Sumeria and worshiped Nanna,a moon god. Then he received revelation from Yahweh. But Abraham still had no idea about Hell or the Trinity - those were revelations that came later. However, Abraham did know about creation and Noah. These things were part of Sumerian religion. The fact that they were passed from Sumer (and earlier) on down to Christianity in no way lessens their validity.

There are kernels of truth in all the thousands of religions. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of them all.

This is utter drivel - meaningless home-brewed "evidence" for whatever your "side" may be (lonely there?). Extraordinary wordgarbage that means zero. In the matter of any proof that there exists an atheist - you FAIL. Done with your mess and out of here.

You are "out of here" because the most likely apologetic response to my position creates even bigger theological problems for you.

Face it. Your cheap trick didn't work, and you have nothing else.

Sounds like a pretty inefficient way for the "one god" to deliver his message. He delivers thousands of different messages for men to pick through and plagiarize from one another for several millenniums?

As for Christ fulfills the Hindu and Islamic, Greek, Norse, and Aztec scriptures? That's Absurd.

Everything is absurd to you.

That's not true.

Most of what you say about shooting is spot on.

Oooops - stumbled back in. No theological problems for me in this morass, and there is no available apologetic for your unstable and inconsistent "position". A challenge for you to prove the existence of an atheist is not a "cheap trick" - it is an inquiry intended to deal with a fundamental. You provide nothing. So, one must supose that you are not an atheist.

With that, maybe I'm gone.

I provided evidence that atheist exist, you have yet to dispute it.

Come back when you can demonstrate that a new born has knowledge of, and a belief in a god(s).

I read your posts too and most I agree with. I think your views on freedom are usually pretty spot-on. But your views on God leave me scratching my head about where your views on freedom come from. Freedom is natural law. God is natural law too.

I know I come off to a lot of you guys as having all the delicacy of a hammer. So don't get used to me being sucky! I'm not giving BJs!

You just described all the arguments made to "prove" the existance of "God" and religions

Barry, thank you for the compliment.

You ask a reasonable question regarding my views on the origins of our freedoms. If you pick an African country, it doesn't matter which one, just about any of them, it's pretty hard to detect any divine protection of the rights of the common man. By and large, these peoples have no rights because they are unarmed and unable to establish and protect their rights.

When I examine the origins of our rights in this country, again I do not see the hand of a divine being, but the blood of patriots. The struggles did not originate in our colonies, but go back centuries to the English Civil war, the signing of the Magna Carta after the First Baron's War, back to the early English traditions that arose from the culture implanted by the remnants of Rome.

In each of these instances, the centralized powers did not give up their power willingly. It was the monarch who believed they were God(s) representative on each and ruled with divine right, and was only through the war, toil, and blood of patriots that first the barons, and later the common man was able to wrestle a measure of freedom from the brutal, oppressive, central powers.

In the eyes of many folks from our southern states, a contra-example of this would be the American Civil War. The Southern States were not able to protect what they perceived as their rights, and were brought to heal. Since then the 10th Amendments little more then a dead letter, because it's a right we've been unable to defend.

It is for this reason I believe the Second is the most important amendment to our constitution, because without the second, there is no first, or any other for that matter. For the last 150 years, we've been able to maintain the balance of the republic, however, after this next election, it's possible that balance could be gone. When you loose the court to tyrants, you loose the republic. If this next election goes the wrong direction, we could loose the courts, and any reasonable reading of our Constitution. Perhaps we could maintain some semblance of balance by our majorities in the legislative branches, but that as well could turn at any time. Then once again, if we with to keep our rights, we may have to defend them, not with prayer, but with lead, powder, and blood.

So, I'll just adress your statement which I've bolded.

FACT: The Jesus of the Biblical text existed and walked the earth. The Biblical Jesus is an historical fact, and is unrefuited.

This particular athiest takes the view of some here...that is...if the Bible says it...it is false. Period.




This particular athiest takes the view that because of his education, he has liscense to be less than honest.




Your blanket statement is completely false.

To say the existence of Jesus is refuted is just not true.

Of course I don't expect you to watch an hour long video, they are just posted here for reference:

Can't say that you are wrong or right about such a description - I have not heard/seen ALL such arguments and wonder how you have managed to obtain such a comprehensive experience. In case it has not become apparent to you, I have no interest in the human effort to prove the existence of God and do not present any arguments toward such an end.

These days I'm comfortable observing and pointing out the silly posturing and futile efforts of those who call themselves atheists, saying there is proof of such, but never prove that an atheist exists. Silly folks that apparently confuse evidence with proof. Yes, like the posturing goofball who apparently thinks it important to his cause that another person be able to proove what a newborn baby thinks or knows - about God or anything. That's some major disillusionment there - a would-be atheist chasing imaginary butterflies.

Why bother to keep coming back to a thread you said you were done with if all you do is repeat the same fantasies?

It's as pointless as Georgiaboy's claims that he can prove God exists because he read about Jesus in the Bible

You can't quote the fairy tale to prove it exists

What's ironic, is that by CCCC's standards, no Christians or Theist of any strip exist either.

This is where you are DEAD wrong. The fact that you cannot find a way to prove something to me or others does not mean that others and I do not recognize other proofs. Try to think beyond your self-set limits.

But this contradicts your earlier statement that you have no proof to offer.

Once again you exemplify the worst of atheist argument. Dishonesty through misrepresentation/mischaracterization.

The two video clips I provided had nothing to do with proving God exists.

Also, neither one of the clips sought to prove the historical Jesus from the Bible.

The first clip was an historian (an agnostic) professor at University of NC Chapel Hill. And the second was from the mouth of one of the world's most well know biologist and atheist.

Therefore, you prove once again, you have no credibility.

At least, AS, in this case, had the integrity to reply with a similar format from which one could listen and learn...if one so chooses.

You've been shown absolute proof which you choose to ignore.
Your refusal to acknowledge a fact doesn't change it's validity.

You're just confirming you only believe what you want to beleive,despite all evidence to the contrary

I have dial up internet, so I can't watch the videos.
It really makes no difference what a couple of professors said, atheist or not.

The Bible is the only book which claims someone named "Jesus" was anything more than a man.

Nothing you've stated so far has done anything to prove the existence of "God" as anything other than a man made myth.

Nothing I presented in my response to you was intended to prove the existense of God. So, I guess my point was missed.

I'm beginning to think you don't have a point.

You keep saying "God did this" and "God did that" while expecting everyone to assume it's real, without any proof at all.

Go back to the post I made in response to you on yesterday at 5:44.

I simply challanged a blanket statement that you made. I even bolded the point I challenged.

I offered as evidence the comments of two very well acknowledged and respected individuals who admitted that the historical record (not Biblical record) points to the fact that there was in fact a historical Jesus.

You'll also note the fact that was the only thing I offered proof of. I did not attempt in anyway to suggest that anything that the Bible says about him was true...only that secular evidence concludes that he indeed was an historical person.

Not one time since that responce to you on yesterday at 5:44 have I used the terms "God did this" or "God did that." These are figments of your imagination.

Perhaps you sould get to a computer that has capabilities other than dial-up so you can view the videos. Hopefully you posess the little bit of integrety needed to do so. Perhaps then you will catch the point.

You really need to step away from this topic for a while. You are loosing perspective...and are running different responces to different people together, and are forming disconnected conclusions.

In this case, nothing that you are running together resembles the particular responce I made toward the particular post of yours.

Why not do yourself an easy favor and simply reprint (copy-and-paste) your "absolute proof" - right here/right now - your absolute proof that an atheist exists. Make it brief - the short and sweet version will do just fine.

Scroll back and read it.

It's still there, and I know what I said, so I don't need to "do myself a favor"

LOL

Now you want to play word games, and confine the discussion to certain time constraints, when my first comments to you started long before those particular posts.

If you had any real proof of the things you've claimed it could be shown.

But it hasn't and won't be.

I'm not confused about who said what, but you seem to be confused about what you said yourself

Go back to where you were talking about heaven and hell, since that's where it began, and show some proof they exist.

It is clear that you do not.

Paul, I think you will come to the same conclusion I have if you consider the consistent theme of Antelope Sniper's posts over the years on the subject of "religion".

While he probably does consider himself an Atheist, it is clear that he is really just anti-Christian.

He has never put forth a coherent argument against a "Creator God" that was not directed specifically against the Christian idea of such an entity.

It is a waste of time to argue with a man who doesn't understand his own philosophical position.

He believes he has a "Science based" world view, yet ignores the most basic scientific principles.

He seems to be an honest man, yet abandons honesty to score debate points [which are only awarded in his own mind].

"Kicking against the goad" ring a bell?

I'm goin' out fishin'.

No proof of course, but it is easier for me to believe that a God made all this, over a "Big Bang". I make a big bang every once in a while and although I have seen things die, I have seen no new life afterwards.

Gene, do you have plenty of water to fish in, and how is your eyes and back after your recent Dr. visits? miles

That makes no sense at all, but is just as sensible as saying there is a heaven or hell

if God made all this... who made God?

How 'bout a God that created everything, and He used the 'Big Bang' to start it all up...? It was the avenue that He chose to use to get things going...!

Gene, thanks and good work. I have come to just about that same conclusion regarding Antelope_Sniper. He does seem like a nice enough fellow with a good brain, but also seems to abandon sensibility and get himself wrapped around the axle in his quest to slam Christians in the name of "atheism". Once in a while it is healthy exercise to draw some of these types out of the bushes and systematically pull their "intellectual" pants down around the ankles.

Another person, Snyper, tends to pile on later in the exchanges as a mimic but, so far, seems like maybe not so much a good fellow. He quickly trips over his own drawers. Here he is avoiding an opportunity to simply re-post his "absolute proof" - which never was apparent.

Gene, as you know, such exchanges eventually reach the point of zero return on investment no matter how nice another fellow may seem to be (or not).

"He thought it and it was" works for me.

Same number of fish in 50 times more water. Makes 'em hard to find. This trip to the camp is mainly to do repairs on my Travel Trailer and boat. I did catch a 2 lb. channel cat and a six lb. Blue yesterday. Fixing to go home and get ready for an Antelope hunt in N.M. next week.

My right hand eye is fine... gonna do the left one next month. I can shoot reciever sights and see only ONE front sight on my six guns now.

The back injections went very well in that I haven't taken a pain pill since I left the clinic. I still have some pain so I'm going back the middle of next month for injections on the other side of my spine.

Go back an read my replies to you...you should be able to see it. There is no play on words.

If the universe is responsible for all this...who or what is responsible for the universe?

Gene - glad you have 50x more water - you're up to the challenge. Happy fishing.

One good eye is a lot better than the previous situation. Where is your antelope hunt in NM?

If it's OK that all of creation came from nothing (as atheists believe), then it oughta be OK that God came from nothing too...!

exactly

but the conundrum is as soon as you identify and entity, then that entity has to have a creator

I'm not sure I am in total agreement with you.

It seems to me that the two most popular arguments boil down to this...something...or someone has always been.

Each person decides for themselves where they choose to start.

Why can't you scroll back and find it if you really want to know?
It was clearly explained.

Instead, you just ramble on

You wanted to limit my comments to particular post, but now want me to go back through all of yours to figure out your cryptic meanings.

It's not worth sifting through the drivel when I got it all the first time around.

Stick to your fairy tales if it makes you happy.

Static Universe hypothesis went out the window in the 1920's.

As for the idea of a specific intelligent being existing since forever, that just raises more questions then it answers, and creates an infinite regress.

Just, for a moment, imagine an entity that is not constrained by the "rules or parameters" He made.

Not at all. It was you who insisted on tying all my replies together.

It is you who supposes that I imply that you do the same now.

And...it is you that insists that I have "cryptic meanings" when I told you plainly that..."There is no play on words."

Because it is obvious that your mind it very shallow, I will tell you that my meaning is clear...I'll use your own words to tell you exactly where to look:

"You wanted to limit my comments to particular post"...

I don't see a problem. More fishing and less cleaning. miles

Explain how a specific intelligent being existing since forever creates an infite regress.

There's that fairy tale again.

Explain why. logically, this "intelligent being" who has "existed since forever" would care about you specifically?

Snyper,

You have really become quite comical.

I have in no way interjected a comment--either overtly or covertly--in my post.

Have you not read enough to recognize that the phrases you have in quotations actually belong to AS and are not mine.

Can you not comprehend that my post that you quoted is actually an inquiry? Do you need a question mark to comprehend?

Or, is it that you are so locked into attack and defend mode that you cannot recognize an attempt at civil discourse?

Since my inquiry was directed to AS...why don't you just take a hike...at least until he has a chance to answer.

Back off! I have thrown down no gauntlet in my reply to the post made by AS.

Mis matched eyes played hell with my shotgunning at doves this year. THAT'S my story and I'm sticking with it.

I'll be hunting near Encino. We still haven't found another Mule Deer lease so we will do antelope this year.

I am not suggesting a Static Universe hypothesis.

That's not a very Christian attitude
But it doesn't surprise me at all.

There's no need to be upset with me just because you have no proof of what you said.

Well, she (Kim Davis) has become a Republican. She's a frigging tool

You still can't find it can you?

It's impossible to find something that doesn't exist.
Talking in circles and using silly icons won't change that

Ok. Here it is. In black and white. Proof of what I said.



It was to the question of your integrety that I replied:

It is clear that you do not.

That little statement sent you on this rampage. Making statements, creating straw-men arguments, demanding proof of things to which I did not refer you to.

Even after I told you exactly where to look, you still continued with the straw-men...and refused to look.

I think it sad, pathetic, may be a better word.

And, all of your subsequent tirades provide evidence that...

If you do not have the integrity to find something that is laid right before you, it would follow that you do not have the integrity to follow any evidence for or against weightier matters.

And for the record. You first used the "silly icon."

Sure GB.

The two typical argument that require God to begin everything are the Cosmological argument, or the argument from design.

You are a well studied apologist, so I imagine you are familiar with both of these arguments. One essentially argues that everything that exists requires a creator, or that everything past a certain level of complexity requires a creator. The problem with both of these arguments is they each leads to an infinite regress, i.e. if everything requires a creator, then who crated God, and a Specific intelligence capable of designing the entire universe is extremely complex itself, i.e. also requiring a creator. Both of these arguments fail as they are both cases of Special Pleading.

Curdog, Good luck on the antelope hunt!!

I hope you have a good sized area to hunt in, because they can cover a lot of ground in a short time.

So when you said "something", you were not referring to the Universe. Got it.

When discussing the origins of the Universe, I prefer to as the question in this manner:

How did our Universe come to exist? Or How did our Universe reach it's current state? What is the history and future of our Universe?

The point is, we want to ask the question in a that pre-supposes as little as possible. I find this can lead to a more honest discussion.

Lets talk about one of the common presuppositions that we hear, that the something, or someone that created the Universe always existed, however, if there was the result of a creative item, it only had to exist long enough to get things started. Imagine a cosmic particle that popped into existence, and this event of it coming to exist started the Universe rolling, but this event also destroyed the cosmic particle. Likewise, who is to say a creator god did not sacrifice himself during the act of Universe creation?

Even a simple idea if not worded carefully, can be full of presuppositions.

Gene - the Encino area seems very good. Often we have seen nice groups along US 60 from Willard all the way to Vaughn - and north on 285 almost to I40. Have a great hunt.

Perhaps you sould get to a computer that has capabilities other than dial-up so you can view the videos. Hopefully you posess the little bit of integrety needed to do so. Perhaps then you will catch the point.


You haven't presented any evidence, which has been my point all along

You have just made a series of disjointed proclamations and insults.

You keep talking in meaningless circles when I already told you it's a waste of time.

The only question you answered was one you asked yourself.

Snyper,

I am not going to address your above comments because after all, as you stated, "it is a waste to time."

So, please allow me to lay this out as simple as I can because it is pointless to continue down this path with you.

You must, however, refer back to the post I referenced. Without doing so, you will not have closure. I don't have a problem if you don't, however, I would rather that we proceed down the better path of "agreeing to disagree."

1. AS summarized the exercise he was engaging in, I'm paraphrasing, "using the literature itself" to discuss/argue the Biblical text.

2. That is why I answered AS back with Biblical text.

3. You came into the context of that discussion with the statement..."it's a fairy tale, none of it is true."

4. I saw that you made a "blanket statement". So I offered you evidence from the mouth of two prominent people: one an agnostic, one an atheist, that the Biblical Jesus was in fact, a historical person.

5. I made no claims in that post about who he was, or what he was to supposed to have done. NOTHING. Only that he was an historical person.

6. That was the point. I'll repeat. That was the point.

7. I'll rephrase. There is historical evidence that Jesus was an historical person. Therefore, SOMETHING in the Biblical text is true.

8. That was the point. I'll repeat. That was the only point.

YOU SAID

9. I'm paraphrasing, "I don't care what any atheist or agnostic professor says."

10. You also said you had a dialup connection, and could not view the video clips I provided as evidence.

11. It was to that statement that I said..."Perhaps you should get to a computer that has capabilities other than dial-up so you can view the videos. Hopefully you poses the little bit of integrity needed to do so. Perhaps then you will catch the point."

12. In all of the subsequent back and forth. You have not one time commented that you have even looked at the evidence I provided.

13. That is why I questioned your integrity.

There it is. I have laid it out as best and simple as I can. I have tried to leave out emotion as much as I am capable of at the moment.

I am done.

I hope you will step back...take a deep breath...and let it go.

Can we simply agree to disagree?

GB

AS,

Please ignor the title. Look at the first interview with Lennox. He says it very well.

Empty space weighs something, and the total net energy of our Universe is within a cosmic fluctuation of zero.

Pretty mind bending, isn't it?

As for Lennox's assertion that Krauss only admits that "nothing isn't nothing" in the last few pages of his book just isn't true. This greatly disappointing me since John Lennox typically is not one to resort to out and out falsehoods to make a point.

The entire 4th chapter of Krauss's book is dedicated to the new scientific understanding of what we previously considered to be "nothing". The rest of Lennox's argument in the video is just an act of obfuscation (mixed with some cherry picking), which is really below a great mind such as Lennox.

regular Kentucky folks!

Lennox, unless I missed it, did not address the work of Krauss. He addressed Dawkins, and his book The God Delusion. It was an unknown (to me) fellow who addressed Krauss in the beginning of the clip.

The points that Lennox makes in his first segment are spot on in my opinion. Dawkin's arguments hinge on the presuposition of a created God.

In your explination, you make some presupostions as well.

And, by the way, I thank you for the explanation. I would not call myself a student of atheistic argument. I simply enjoy meaningful/civil (as much as enthusiam will allow) discourse.

Got you. Now I'm on the right portion of the clip.

In this instance, I do not feel Lennox effective refuted Dawkins. Whether I can imagine something has no effect on it's reality. I can imagine many things that do not exist. Lennox merely asserts that God is eternal. Asserting something doesn't make it so, nor does it address the questions of how, or why. It's the equivalent of a parent saying "because I said so", which brings us full circle back to an evidence based discussion, and just plugging in Gd to fill the gaps.

Got you. Now I'm on the right portion of the clip.



Then I would point to some assertions or presuppositions in your comments. They are as follows:

[/i]"...if there was the result of a creative item, it only had to exist long enough to get things started."[i]

[/i]Imagine a cosmic particle that popped into existence, and this event of it coming to exist started the Universe rolling, but this event also destroyed the cosmic particle.[i]

[/i]Likewise, who is to say a creator god did not sacrifice himself during the act of Universe creation?[i]

In fairess, could one not apply your argument that, "Whether I can imagine something has no effect on it's reality" to your comments as well?

Got you. Now I'm on the right portion of the clip.



GB, the post you quoted were just alternate ways to think to think of the problem. It was not my intention to assert that any of them are true, nor that there is any convincing evidence for them. (beyond that presented for quantum fluctuations in "empty" space") I was just showing that if you assert the creation of our Universe was due to a god etc, it is not a necessary condition for that god, creative force, or element to be eternal.

Thank you for the clarification and your honesty.

However, would you agree that nor would it necessarly exclude that God, creative force, or element to be eternal?

If you ask the question properly, it should be prejudice neither for nor against any particular proposal. Of course, each hypothesis must then stand or fall on the merits of the evidence.

Thank you.
Will you educate...show me how I should have properly put the question?

Here are some examples. I don't claim that any of them are the perfect way to ask the question:

How did our Universe come to exist? Or How did our Universe reach it's current state? What is the history and future of our Universe?

The point is, we want to ask the question in a way that that leads to as presupposition as little as possible. I find this can lead to a more honest discussion.

Generally, the key is to ask "how", and not "who" or "what".

Thanks.

Over and out...for tonight.

"How did our Universe come to exist?"

"A creative force beyond our ability to comprehend" is as logical an answer as any.

And the answer I prefer.

The job requires her to do something she doesn't wanna do...for 'whatever' reason...she says it's because of her beliefs...her 'convictions'. If her 'convictions' were as strong and solid as she professes them to be...then she'd simply drop that job like a dirty shirt...and not make a big production about it.

Curdog,

The problem with your answer is it suggests we shouldn't even try to understand what really happened. This is one of the dangers of religion that is can stifle discovery and innovation.

AS, you may be incorrect. It may be that, by preferring such an answer regarding the work of the Supernatural, many mere mortal minds are freed and inspired to discovery and inovation that actually can be accomplished by humans. Just a logical possibility.

P.S. If not religion, what would be the "stifler" in your case?

CCCC, in this instance, Curdog specifically says it is "beyond our ability to comprehend", indicating we shouldn't even try, because, by definition, we can never understand it.

For Scientist, one stifler is pessimism. Once a scientist becomes pessimistic and decides he endeavor is futile, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, for that person, and more optimistic mind must then take up the mantle.

NO, A.S., you could not be more wrong. Paul gave you part of the answer, I'll give you the rest.

Once we accept our limitations, a whole new world of possibilities opens up. Accepting limitations is actually the first step toward an open mind.

Specifically regarding the series of questions you posed, the answer I provided led me to discovering a whole new avenue of "comprehension" which SEEMS to operate on an entirely different, but just as rigid, set of Principles as the Scientific Principles which you have chained YOUR mind to.

Life is for living, not conjecture.

By adopting these Spiritual Principles, I find my questions about Life are answered, or the questions are removed from my mind.

It is easy for me to believe that these Spiritual Principles are actually higher up and go farther back than ALL the Scientific Principles.

As long as you mistake Spiritual Principles for Religious ideas, you will win your debates, but remain forever ignorant of other dimensions to Life.

Excellent, Gene.

CCCC,

When Curdog was using religion to explain the origins of this Universe, he was using religion as science. When you are using religion to understand Spiritual Principles, you are employing religion as philosophy. Big Difference!!

The story of Adam and Eve doesn't work very well as science, buy may work well as a literary allegory for some philosophical principles. Just because something makes good literature, does not mean it's scientifically or historically accurate.

"As long as you mistake Spiritual Principles for Religious ideas, you will win your debates, but remain forever ignorant of other dimensions to Life."

I am not a religious man, my friend. But your "Religious Strawman" is such an integral part of your argument that you can't abandon it, even when it's not appropriate.

Your last post made my point.

Regarding the thread topic, if the woman was following Spiritual Principles, she would simply have resigned with no fanfare.

Her actions are a classic case of the conflict between Religiosity and Spirituality.

I hope that you run and are elected Sheriff, and a Federal Judge orders you to confiscate all "assault weapons" in your jurisdiction.

The first reply to Judicial overreach is civil disobedience...not resignation.

If you take their money, you do your job.

If the job violates your principles, you quit it.

It really is THAT simple.

Gene - sometimes folks on here behave, and argue, as if their navel is the center of the universe. This seems particularly true of those who go to ridiculous extremes trying to bash Christians by citing and ridiculing "religion" (whatever that may be to them). Could it be that the simplicity and forthrightness of living a life of faith, according to certain values and principles, is beyond their ken?

Just because someone doesn't share your values and principles, doesn't mean they do not live by values and principles.

That's true, of course. But what is their origin? Why are they so similar, even across cultural boundaries?

Most people think they have an inborn sense of right and wrong.This is the most prevalent evidence of a Supernatural Force which seems to be interested in our behavior.

The whole notion that it comes from "enlightened self interest" is one of the more ridiculous mental contortions atheists come up with to explain away any hint of any dimension other than the physical.

"Abandonment of Self" is what's printed on the ticket to the Spiritual Dimension. The intellect is the most prized possession of the Self, and it takes a tremendous exertion of the Will to surrender it.

Most can't do it.

I guess now would be a good time to throw the Civil Rights Act and all subsequent addendum out the door.

Everyone should have just quit in the first place.

You make a good point.

The older apologist referred to what you describe (Supernatural Force) interested in out behavior as Natural Law.

C.S. Lewis does a good job of making the case for Natural Law in his book Mere Christianity.

When Adam Smith wrote about the invisible hand, he was writing about Free Markets, not God.

As for surrendering our facilities of reasoning and objective understanding as being some kind of moral good, that beyond absurd. I'm surprised to hear you promoting Democrats as morally superior.

The English - or spelling - or both - seem somewhat fractured there so, if at all interested, one has to assume some intent by AS. The previous writer seemed to be saying that, even when bashers of Christians and God do employ reasoning and what they think is objectivity - and even when they do operate on what they consider to be moral values/principles - they still seem to be missing something BIG. And that, in order to get to the BIG level, they have to move beyond ("abandon") utter and complete dependence on limited human reasoning and the ever-elusive human "proof". Seems to me that would take some trust - even maybe courage. Merely speculating - not my lot, as a human, to declare any such things.

Adam Smith's invisible hand is a straw-man in the context of a reply to the post.

Abandon your reason for faith, faith in a book written 2-3.5k years ago by primitive goat herders, who's solution to everything included either animal, or human sacrifice.

Once again, you are also resorting to deceptive word game. I've never asked you for proof, just evidence, and you concede you have none to offer.

Hey, don't knock the goat herders. I'll be pit cooking a goat for Christmas.

Gene's pegged it squarely. Of course, the clerk in question only has a problem with "spiritually derived laws" when it applies to gays getting a gov't license to marry so they can get .gov benefits regarding taxes, inheritances, insurances, etc., yet she has NO use for said spiritual laws when she's screwing around on husband #1, conceiving children out of wedlock against the marriage with #1 with eventual #3, then divorcing #1 while engaged in extramarital sex with #2; then continuing the affair with #3 while married to #2, until divorcing him for now #3...

Such a devout, strict "Christian"... Except when it comes to her.

Oh, and then there's the "I don't want to do my job, but I want to keep it and the pay and the benefits" part.

What a "hero"...

GB, Don't get me wrong.

I enjoy roasted goat. Just don't ask me to read the entrails to tell your fortune.

Wow! You've done quite an investigation.

Can you get the goods on Hillery?

"Abandon your reason for faith, faith in a book written 2-3.5k years ago by primitive goat herders, who's solution to everything included either animal, or human sacrifice.

Once again, you are also resorting to deceptive word game. I've never asked you for proof, just evidence, and you concede you have none to offer."

I can't believe you STILL keep introducing the Bible into the conversation.

You really have become a "One note Johnny".

Spiritual Principles are certainly not confined to the Bible, and, in fact, predate it.

And you know that.

The clerk's history is readily available to any that give a damn to look. She's a devout hypocrite; nothing more.

Hitlery is a red herring, but hopefully that bitch burns soon, long, and eternally.

Wonder where the information came from. Was it from her? I'm just wondering.

Oh, and by the way, I would stand with her on the principle of judicial over reach even it she were an athiest.

This is not strickly a religious matter.

Yes, her, in her public divorce filings and child support pleadings.

She's making a "religious" stand, only when it doesn't apply to her. Hypocrite, to put it mildly, and a thief to boot.

Can you even define a "spiritual principle"?

"Abandon your reason for faith,....... "

That's not even close to what I said.

The ability to reason is but one part of the Self. The Self is all you are.

And there is no "faith" involved.

You simply offer yourself, honestly and completely, to whatever Creative Force there may be.

If there is no Creative Force, you will remain unchanged.

But the depth of the surrender required is such, and the human ego is so strong, that the majority of people can only accomplish it when all their human resources have failed them.

However,Dr. William James claims that there are what he called the "Once Born" among us. They seem to have been born into a state of harmony with the Spiritual Realm.

So,my friend, YOU contain the very best evidence of a Creative Force right inside your own being, yet you demand that CCCC produce evidence on your terms.

Not a very Scientific approach.

Excellent argument and yet it completely destroys any single faith/belief stance as well.

That's because I wasn't quoting you.

I was quoting CCCC, but you cut off that part of my quot.

You ask for a definition, not an example, so......

There are only TWO wills in the Physical realm.

Mine, and yours.

In a particular instance,when we disagree, I can follow yours.... or mine.

In the Spiritual Realm, there is a third will.

If I follow it... I'll be OK, even if you don't agree.

Spiritual Principles are the essence of that "still, small, voice".[btw...there's my definition]

Religion, which is humanly derived, will always seek out Justification and Rationalization. These are the "Ancient enemies of Spirituality".

"Excellent argument and yet it completely destroys any single faith/belief stance as well."

IF there is only ONE God...... can a wrong one answer?

So you claim we should offer ourselves to a creative force, one which you admit may not exist, then claim there is no cost to offering yourself to something that may not exist? Sounds like shades of Pascals Wager.

If you are trying to say we must all accept there are thing we cannot change, well, yea, that's just the way it is. This isn't some "spiritual truth", it's just the plain truth, whether we like it or not.

As for William James, nice philosophy, now how do you turn that into evidence?

It sounds like you are equating "spiritual principles" with our conscience?

I KNOW that Force exists. There was a time I only suspected it. Then I performed the "experiment" and now I know.

If you try it and find nothing, what has it cost you? No Pascal's wager involved.

Why are you talking about "acceptance"? It has nothing to do with anything I've posted. It would be a better discussion if you respond to the words I type.

William James' comment about the "Once Born" was a result of studying THOUSANDS of cases of "Religious Experiences" which resulted in profound changes in the Subjects of his studies.

Do you consider Psychology a Science? He is reckoned as the "Father of Modern Psychology", you know.

No.... look up "essence".

BTW.... where did your conscience come from? We ruled out evolution as its source in earlier conversations.

Here is a Spiritual Principle for you:

"As you sow, you will surely reap".[what goes around comes around]

The Spiritual Realm seems to be a balance between a Perfect Justice and a Perfect Mercy.

With respect to us, the Creator's Perfect Mercy trumps his Perfect Justice,

If I had one more class in it, I've have enough psychology for a minor. Of the sciences, by far, I consider psychology the weakest. Psychologist are notoriously lousy statisticians. It's amazing how often they do a "study" with a sample size in the single digits. There's a reason at my last University Psychology classes did not qualify as science credit.

As for your psychologist from 100 years ago with proof of God, do you have a link the the pear review journal article containing this "proof", or was no one else ever able to replicate his results?

Didn't read his lecture series, did you? University of Edinburgh,,,"Varieties of Religious Experiences".

Nothing about "proving God". Just studying the experiences of the people involved.

His "results" are being replicated as we speak, somewhere. By the millions.

Every time a human establishes communication with the God that made him, and his life is changed for the better.

And they laugh at your presumptuous demand for "proof", or "evidence".

Fist, I never agreed that an evolutionary nature of the conscience could be rules out. If anything, I would propose just the opposite of your conclusion,

As for your definition, see how quickly it falls apart?

You mention the work essence, then never work it into the definition. Then you propose it as an balance between two opposites. Mercy is the suspension of justice. With perfect Mercy, there is not justice and vise versa.

In other words you offered a self contradictory definition, meaning that which you propose cannot exist.

Regarding your example "As you sow, you will surely reap", earlier you said spirituality had nothing to do with the Bible, but then you quote Galatians? So, if as you claim, a spiritual truth is something that comes from inside you, and not from religion, why are you quoting the Bible for your "spiritual truths"?

What you really quoted is jut a proverb, so in your example "spiritual truths" are just everyday experiences and common observations summarized in a conscious way?

I'm still trying to understand where the "spiritual" part comes from?

So his results were not peer reviewed, nor replicated by his peers. Good to know.

As for people thinking they are communicating with God as evidence, there sure are a lot of contradictory gods these people think they are communicating with. If there was only one god we should expect a more unified message.

"So his results were not peer reviewed, nor replicated by his peers. Good to know.

As for people thinking they are communicating with God as evidence, there sure are a lot of contradictory gods these people think they are communicating with. If there was only one god we should expect a more unified message."

An overwhelming majority of your fellow humans claim to visit a place, a Spiritual Dimension , which you claim does not exist because they can't provide evidence meeting your standards. You have been given directions on how to get to it, but you refuse to make the trip. You have a lot in common with the Flat Earth adherents of a few centuries ago.

If the Spiritual Dimension operated under the same Physical Laws as the Universe we CAN comprehend, it wouldn't be a separate dimension, would it?

You are like a man attempting to referee a soccer match using an NFL rule book.

The players are amused.

Imagine the Spiritual Realm as being like a wagon wheel. The Creator God is the hub and we humans are like spokes. We cannot see the rim, but as long as we hold fast to our attachment to the hub, we are secured to the rim and are in exactly the right relationship to the other spokes.

There are loose spokes which haven't found their socket in the hub. There are spokes who claim they can see the rim and are concerned that other spokes are in the wrong socket, even though they appear to be secured to the hub.

Some loose spokes judge the entire Wheel by the actions of these vocal spokes and stop looking for their socket.

But they can never escape the Wheel's boundaries, the Hub and the rim.

"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know."

After all his research, Dr. James wrote something like this:

"All the books ever written can not begin to explain what happens in the mind of a man who meets his Creator for the first time".

AS - either you are unprincipled within yourself or you are talking out of your mind. You know full well that there is nothing deceptive about that straightforward response - and one can understand why you don't like to read it. And, again, don't try to deflect the fact that never have you provided your promised "proof" that an atheist exists even though another guy did 'fess up and spring that trap on himself (and on you).

You also know that never have I said that I wished to, or could, provide evidence (let alone proof) to you regarding God, but also certainly never "conceded" a lack of the same. I challenge you to search everything said on here and re-post my words making such a concession. You should be ashamed of the above post.

I said nothing about God; I said that your excellent argument destroys any single faith/belief stance.

So not you are claiming people visit that which you cannot even define. When asked to define "spiritual truths", the best you could come up with was a collection of proverbs.

As for people experiencing strange things within their brain, that does not prove the assistance of another realm. If you take LSD you will have a very strange experience within your brain, but this does not prove the existence of a spiritual realm, just that you are experiencing an altered brain state. Drugs are not the only way to bring about an altered brain state, dehydration, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, oxygen deprecation, hypothermia, hunger, being covered with stinging insects, or some combination of the above can all bring about an altered brain state. These are actually things we understand, and with modern science can even detect the changes as the occur within the brain.

An altered brain state is evidence of an altered brain state, not the existence of some "spiritual realm" or god(s).

I never thought of prayer- which is a trip into the Spiritual Dimension - as an altered brain state, but I suppose it fits OK.

As far as the "proverb" I quoted, stuff is not true just because it's in the Bible. Some stuff is in the Bible because it's true.

Big difference.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Of course you are being dishonest. You understand the difference between evidence and proof, we've discussed it many times, yet you intentionally conflate the two.

You admit to having no evidence to present, and are not even capable of defining your god, nor the atheist that you claim do not exist. You've been give proof for the existence of atheist as I defined them, yet you've never addressed it, because you can't.

The fact that you cannot, or at least will not, even define your god is sufficient reason not to accept him. Perhaps it's due to a lack of intellect, or maybe this is just another one of your attempted apologetic tricks, regardless, there is no sounds reason for an skeptic to believe in that which cannot be defines, nor for that which you cannot, or at least refuse, to offer evidence.

Saying a prayer?

That's your idea of a "trip to the spiritual diminution"?

I was expecting something much more immersive before you would classify it as a "trip".

"Saying a prayer?

That's your idea of a "trip to the spiritual diminution"?

I was expecting something much more immersive before you would classify it as a "trip"."

Once again, your ignorance of the Spiritual Realm is exposed.

Prayer is the most common "trip" that experienced travelers make.

You are so full of misconceptions that there is no room left in your mind for learning.

A mind which willingly shackles itself to Science is indeed small, no matter its intellectual prowess.

My mind is not small, I'm just as susceptible to delusions and altered mind states as many others. I cannot be hypnotized, and hydrocodones, morphine, and anesthesia produce no mind altering effects on me. Dan Barker talks about how he can put himself into a state of euphoria anytime he chooses. I suspect I would not be able to duplicate that feat. Sam Harris has also studied Buddhist who can do the same, but again, we understand the brain chemistry and brain mechanics involved.

As for my ability to learn. I learn everyday. I just don't believe the acceptance of fairy-tales as truth is a prerequisite for learning. If anything, by not accepting fairy-tales I can learn more truths that can be discovered by science.

As for your prayers allowing you to travel to the spiritual realm, all you are demonstrating is your capacity for self delusion.

But hey, at least you are not hallucinating an alien abduction. I understand those can be a little more unpleasant.

AS, get help, buddy. Ya got issues.

OT,

I'm not the one having delusions, but thanks anyway.

Come on back when you have some more of your Fall River Cowboy wisdom for us.

Thanks.

AS - I DO have some evidence of something. Given the delusional content and the style of your posts here, it is evident that you are having some problems in dealing with these discussions. Wish I could be of help, but am not the one to do so. Best wishes.