In Georgia, a bill to cut all ties with the American Library Association is advancing

[JaySecrets]

MY, MY MY,....fuck off, your MY doesn't over ride the rights I hold.
Again asI've posted before; you're acting like you hold some higher right than the rest of society because you have faith your version of the sky gods is the right one...It doesn't work that way.

Don't like you tax dollars supporting something, vote out the people who supported that legislation,and vote in ones who will reverse it.

That is how it works.

Oh that's exactly why Trump was elected to begin with, because he was at least in his behavior... I would say for more pragmatic reasons than for actual principal reasons... supporting those values in his policies. That's why he's being supported by many people on the conservative side. You would be surprised what my actual position on his run now is... It's most certainly not what you think it is. It's why I would heavily support a Tim Scott run for president. But that's exactly how we function.

Funny thing is we don't riot in the streets, we don't burn down businesses, we don't stomp people to death because they're wearing a hat that supports someone that we don't like, we don't walk around saying that people we disagree with need to be shut down and not only should we disagree with what they say but we should be anti the person that says it. We don't do any of this. In fact, everything I just described are trademarks of what those on the left do.

If there's a speaker who a espouses is a liberal point of view on a college campus, many of us actually go to hear them and take notes so we know it was said and so we hear the perspective presented. And then we simply pay to have a speaker come to that campus (as opposed to what happens often with that liberal speaker where the campus pays to have him come and then won't have the same funding for a conservative voice) to present the other point of view. In return, when that conservative speaker shows up the liberal students and the liberals in that college community riot and sometimes make it so dangerous that the speaker can't show up safely or when he speaks or she speaks. They get shouted down and screamed down to where they can't get the words out of their mouths. Again, this comes from very specific actions that your side has taken over and over and over again.

My funding does not belong going to your drag show or to books that attack the values that I am trying to instill in my children. And no one is saying that yours should do the same. You are saying that a drag show should be allowed at the library, but I'm relatively certain that if we decided to hold an Evangelical Christian revival meeting at the library, and we held that during normal operating library hours, and we said well if you don't like it just don't come during that time, not only would you be outraged, you would be suing the library for allowing it, and you would be quoting a very misquoted line and misapplied line about separation of church and state, even though the line separation of church and state doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution.
In other words, you don't want the library to be a space for equal and full conversation. You want people who oppose your point of view pushed out and only your point of view presented. We on the other hand are not trying to have church services in the library during library hours, we pay for or find the spaces for conservative speakers and those who would present a conservative point of view using our own resources and we don't have them due conservative speeches in the library. The reason you haven't been exposed to those speakers is because those speakers are happening in our places that we paid for. And given where we are at culturally, that's how it should be. We're not even saying pull every liberal book off the shelves. There are many books in the library that push atheism, evolution, anti-theism, Hinduism, Islam, homosexuality, and the list of things in these books that we disagree with go on and on. You might be surprised to know that we actually pick them up to read them to know what those perspectives are. In fact, parents who are responsible and train their children, they actually are having their child read a book about atheism and then having that child go through and see if they can identify and make a case against the flawed logic in that book. When they are old enough and mature enough to handle that.

But a 5-year-old has no defense against Timmy has two mommies and Susie has two daddies. A 5-year-old has no defense against the overtly sexual references in books that explain sexuality to a kid who has no business being exposed to it yet. A 5-year-old has no defense against a drag show. These are adult conversations. The objection is dragging children into those conversations. And the fact that the library association in question does that, they should be cut off.

 

[JaySecrets]

Bullshit, just you hiding again behind your beliefs. These threads go off the rails on and on tangents all the time. The only thing here stopping you from offering up a defence, is you. Either defend your claims, or as we say...STFU

For me to lay out the apologetics on this would involve discussions of manuscript evidence and how manuscript evidence works and then how the manuscript evidence applies in this situation so that you can understand the strength of the manuscript evidence. It would involve me starting to get into how forensic scientists compare statements in cases that are dead cases and figure out and investigate history using forensics of texts to show whether or not the claims of that text are reasonably accurate or not. It wouldn't involve then me getting into some details about history and then going to prophecies in the scripture that were incredibly detailed and written thousands of years before the actual event happened. The prophecies in scripture being not only accurate in the event but accurate in the time in which it takes place to a point where no man could have done it. It would also involve me showing all kinds of places where it was the Bible that got it right on some very incredible scientific advances that we now know to be true today that they didn't know be to be true then except it was in the text to do certain things and now we know why or it was in the text and it was assumed to be simply poetic and then we are now looking at actual science and we're saying oh crap. That's the description of what actually happens. Then it would involve a comparative study between books of the Bible and a continuity in theme and message and language. And then it would involve an extensive study upon the differences of timelines and the calendars of a divided Kingdom between the northern and southern Kingdom and Israel. And it would be required to then do some study on the way, for example, the Babylonian language would have been used in certain texts in Daniel and then the Jewish language and others because of who was being addressed. And then of course we would have to get into the history and the historical evidence for Jesus himself and then for the crucifixion and Resurrection and whether or not there's reasonable belief to.... Do you get the picture? What you're saying I need to lay out here, it takes books to present. There's so much there. It takes books. You don't want me to do that. So I have given a link on here to one of the best books I've read on the subject so that you can go for yourself and do what I call ear reading, listening to the audiobook, or get the ebook or actually get a paper copy of the book. I also gave authors who are some of the best at what they do in laying out the evidence and answering your questions. I'm happy to do that again if you want me to. But don't say that you want me to lay out all the evidence and apologetics here because you don't. You would become exhausted with that very quickly.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

For me to lay out the apologetics on this would involve discussions of manuscript evidence and how manuscript evidence works and then how the manuscript evidence applies in this situation so that you can understand the strength of the manuscript evidence. It would involve me starting to get into how forensic scientists compare statements in cases that are dead cases and figure out and investigate history using forensics of texts to show whether or not the claims of that text are reasonably accurate or not. It wouldn't involve then me getting into some details about history and then going to prophecies in the scripture that were incredibly detailed and written thousands of years before the actual event happened. The prophecies in scripture being not only accurate in the event but accurate in the time in which it takes place to a point where no man could have done it. It would also involve me showing all kinds of places where it was the Bible that got it right on some very incredible scientific advances that we now know to be true today that they didn't know be to be true then except it was in the text to do certain things and now we know why or it was in the text and it was assumed to be simply poetic and then we are now looking at actual science and we're saying oh crap. That's the description of what actually happens. Then it would involve a comparative study between books of the Bible and a continuity in theme and message and language. And then it would involve an extensive study upon the differences of timelines and the calendars of a divided Kingdom between the northern and southern Kingdom and Israel. And it would be required to then do some study on the way, for example, the Babylonian language would have been used in certain texts in Daniel and then the Jewish language and others because of who was being addressed. And then of course we would have to get into the history and the historical evidence for Jesus himself and then for the crucifixion and Resurrection and whether or not there's reasonable belief to.... Do you get the picture? What you're saying I need to lay out here, it takes books to present. There's so much there. It takes books. You don't want me to do that. So I have given a link on here to one of the best books I've read on the subject so that you can go for yourself and do what I call ear reading, listening to the audiobook, or get the ebook or actually get a paper copy of the book. I also gave authors who are some of the best at what they do in laying out the evidence and answering your questions. I'm happy to do that again if you want me to. But don't say that you want me to lay out all the evidence and apologetics here because you don't. You would become exhausted with that very quickly.

No one’s arguing against the historical existence of Jesus. He was a real guy who was executed by the Romans. The problem is the Christian claim he was divine.

 

[InThe312]

No one’s arguing against the historical existence of Jesus. He was a real guy who was executed by the Romans. The problem is the Christian claim he was divine.

But if we get rid of all the books about Jesus, maybe he'll cease to exist, just like gay men, drag queens and liberals.

 

[JaySecrets]

No one’s arguing against the historical existence of Jesus. He was a real guy who was executed by the Romans. The problem is the Christian claim he was divine.

But the problem with that position is that scripture, texts that can be easily and extensively proven to be honest and accurate accounts, Make it clear that he didn't leave the option of saying that he was a good man or that he was a prophet. He claimed to be God. He claimed to be God over and over. So either he was a lunatic and not worthy to be listened to, a liar of the ultimate kind and therefore a very evil man, or he was who he claimed to be. God come in flesh. That's what the miracles were about. Very public miracles. Miracles that even his enemies wouldn't deny, rather said he did them by the power of Satan. He claimed to be God. And the resurrection was the ultimate proof. And there is more evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus than for any event in history. When the one you follow rises from the dead, then maybe I'll be willing to pay attention to his claims too.

 

[JaySecrets]

But if we get rid of all the books about Jesus, maybe he'll cease to exist, just like gay men, drag queens and liberals.

Ever since the church started, entire empires have tried to crush out the name of Jesus. Men have tried it. Cities have tried it. Nations have tried it. They have tried killing. Have tried torture. They have tried bribery. They have tried seduction. They have tried every possible means and every time they fail. That Bible is literally the most attacked book in history. It is the one book that mankind has attempted to destroy over and over and over and over and over again. And every time that book comes out on top. You can't stop this thing. It's truth. Truth can't be stopped.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

But the problem with that position is that scripture, texts that can be easily and extensively proven to be honest and accurate accounts, Make it clear that he didn't leave the option of saying that he was a good man or that he was a prophet. He claimed to be God. He claimed to be God over and over. So either he was a lunatic and not worthy to be listened to, a liar of the ultimate kind and therefore a very evil man, or he was who he claimed to be. God come in flesh. That's what the miracles were about. Very public miracles. Miracles that even his enemies wouldn't deny, rather said he did them by the power of Satan. He claimed to be God. And the resurrection was the ultimate proof. And there is more evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus than for any event in history. When the one you follow rises from the dead, then maybe I'll be willing to pay attention to his claims too.

Or maybe he was a good man who simply was deluded. Or the people writing the chronicles afterwards made up stories about him.

 

[BlueEyes1969]

It's not about what I think. It's about what the Book defined Christianity as. A Muslim is defined by what the Koran says Islam is. Mormonism is defined by the Book of Mormon. No one objects to that. But try to say that Christianity is defined by what the Bible says, and you object. "That's bigoted!" "That's Nazi"

That's stupid.

When you try to shove your interpretation of the message of the Bible down the throats of others who interpret it differently than you is both fascist, stupid and dangerous. You are welcome to believe what you choose but don't define our faith journeys by your personal view.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh that's exactly why Trump was elected to begin with,

Blah Blah Blah, again if you don't like how your tax dollars are spent, change out who determines that. Irrelevant of where tax dollars are spent, your right don't top mine.

So quit fucking whining that they do!!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

But don't say that you want me to lay out all the evidence and apologetics here because you don't. You would become exhausted with that very quickly.

I just finished asking you to lay it out. I think you don't want to because you know it'll get ripped to shreds. AS to me getting exhausted, fuck off.

 

[JaySecrets]

I just finished asking you to lay it out. I think you don't want to because you know it'll get ripped to shreds. AS to me getting exhausted, fuck off.

It's a matter of time and space and energy... You're asking me to condense what books, volumes of books have been written on, something that has been proven ad nauseam for... Well since Christianity has been around. It's like asking a Muslim to, in a thread like this, defend every tenet of Islam. There's just not time or space. That's why I linked above an excellent resource that you can go to and study at length, And in that book you're going to get tons of footnotes and end notes, And I also gave you the names of two other authors if you want to go further with it. These are not the only good sources, far from it. But they are some of the most concise and easily digestible. If you don't want to read that and actually do some of that homework, there's nothing left really for me to do. The scope and breadth of what I would have to cover to show all these evidences, it would be the effect of trying to overwhelm and overpower someone who disagrees with me by way too much information. At the end of the day either you believe or you don't. That's a heart issue. That's between you and God. Not me.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It's a matter of time and space and energy... You're asking me to condense what books, volumes of books have been written on, something that has been proven ad nauseam for...

If it's been proven ad nauseam, then it should be easy. Right?

Well since Christianity has been around. It's like asking a Muslim to, in a thread like this, defend every tenet of Islam. There's just not time or space. That's why I linked above an excellent resource that you can go to and study at length, And in that book you're going to get tons of footnotes and end notes, And I also gave you the names of two other authors if you want to go further with it. These are not the only good sources, far from it. But they are some of the most concise and easily digestible. If you don't want to read that and actually do some of that homework, there's nothing left really for me to do. The scope and breadth of what I would have to cover to show all these evidences, it would be the effect of trying to overwhelm and overpower someone who disagrees with me by way too much information. At the end of the day either you believe or you don't. That's a heart issue.

If you linked something I never saw it. Link it again please.

That's between you and God. Not me.

There is nothing between god and me, she doesn't exist.

We are all stardust born of the cosmic birth of the Universe. That is a provable fact.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It's a matter of time and space and energy... You're asking me to condense what books, volumes of books have been written on, something that has been proven ad nauseam for... Well since Christianity has been around. It's like asking a Muslim to, in a thread like this, defend every tenet of Islam. There's just not time or space. That's why I linked above an excellent resource that you can go to and study at length, And in that book you're going to get tons of footnotes and end notes, And I also gave you the names of two other authors if you want to go further with it. These are not the only good sources, far from it. But they are some of the most concise and easily digestible. If you don't want to read that and actually do some of that homework, there's nothing left really for me to do. The scope and breadth of what I would have to cover to show all these evidences, it would be the effect of trying to overwhelm and overpower someone who disagrees with me by way too much information. At the end of the day either you believe or you don't. That's a heart issue. That's between you and God. Not me.

You don’t have to explain everything in Christian doctrine. Just explain the Trinity.

 

[JaySecrets]

Explain the Trinity.

have one that I love. So who does God love? This only makes sense in the concept of a trinity. The father loves the son. The son loves the Father. The spirit is the manifestation of that love in a very tangible, real physical way in a person in that Trinity (I'm borrowing heavily from c.s Lewis here by the way) , And every person in that triune relationship is God. Singular.

One other thought and I'm going to leave it at that. In the Shabbat, there is an interesting word. When it says hear o Israel the Lord your God is one, The word one in Hebrew is a very interesting word and there is no word like it in English. The word one there is a singular plural. The other place you see the word is when God says of marriage that a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh. The idea of a singular plural is, for example, when you have pieces of twine that are wrapped and braided together, And those braided pieces of twine become one rope. A. Singular plural. That is the word the Old testament uses for one when it talks about God. And that's about as close as you're going to get to understanding it. You're not going to wrap your mind around it.

 

[JaySecrets]

Crap. I knew this was about to probably blink out and make it so I had to reload the page before I could post what I had written. So I copied and pasted but I apparently didn't copy the whole thing... So I know that answer makes no sense. Give me a second.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

You never call, you never write...

 

[InThe312]

Crap. I knew this was about to probably blink out and make it so I had to reload the page before I could post what I had written. So I copied and pasted but I apparently didn't copy the whole thing... So I know that answer makes no sense. Give me a second.

Let's be honest. You never make sense anyway.

 

[JaySecrets]

You don’t have to explain everything in Christian doctrine. Just explain the Trinity.

You are asking the finite to explain the infinite. The best I can do here is explain the reasonableness of not being able to explain everything.

If I invented a world on paper. So it's a little stick figure world and I create a whole set of rules that only make sense in that world. I am not subject to the rules of that world that I created because I am outside that world. The only way that I become subject to those rules, is if I were to actually physically enter into that world somehow. (That is, by the way, The importance of the Divinity of Christ.)
God is, then not subject to the rules of time and matter and space that we are. He exists outside of that. We see this in things like the law. We know it's wrong, for example to steal. We don't like it when others steal from us. But we still occasionally steal. We violate the very principles and laws that we say we hold.
If we are violating the very laws we say we hold, we cannot be the source of those laws. There has to be a higher lawgiver outside of those laws that put those laws in place to begin with because we would have never invented something that we can't and won't follow. God then becomes the source who is outside of those laws and in fact the very standard of those laws.
The same holds true with things like mathematics and with the laws of nature and all kinds of other things. He invented them. He exists outside of them. He is not subject to them. And because we only know what we know, we can't comprehend a being Who is outside of what we know.
So when God chooses to reveal himself he reveals himself in clear terms but he doesn't explain it because we can't grasp it anyway even if he did. In human mathematics 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. In Divine mathematics outside of the subjects of our own limited finite mathematics, One + One + One = one.

So all I can do here is simply say what scripture already says. God is one being, not three. We aren't talking about polytheism. Yet within this one being that is God there are three parts or three persons rather. Those three persons are unified in goal, heart motive. Everything that could be in play within that being. But there are three persons, One being. It makes no sense by our logic because we are dealing with the one who invented the rules on which our logic is based, with one who exists outside of our universe, our rules and our laws.
God is not like anything in creation, because he is the Creator. He is not like an egg or like water or whatever other examples of the Trinity you probably have come across in the past. He is not like any created thing. Is outside of and above and beyond anything that was created.
We do have a hint of how that dynamic of the Trinity works when God says God is love. Because we also know God says he doesn't change which means God has always been love. Which would mean in eternity past before Time. God was and is still love. One cannot love let alone be love without having one that they love. So who does God love? This only makes sense in the concept of a trinity. The father loves the son. The son loves the Father. The spirit is the manifestation of that love in a very tangible, real physical way in a person in that Trinity (I'm borrowing heavily from c.s Lewis here by the way) , And every person in that triune relationship is God. Singular.

One other thought and I'm going to leave it at that. In the Shabbat, there is an interesting word. When it says hear o Israel the Lord your God is one, The word one in Hebrew is a very interesting word and there is no word like it in English. The word one there is a singular plural. The other place you see the word is when God says of marriage that a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh. The idea of a singular plural is, for example, when you have pieces of twine that are wrapped and braided together, And those braided pieces of twine become one rope. A. Singular plural. That is the word the Old testament uses for one when it talks about God. And that's about as close as you're going to get to understanding it. You're not going to wrap your mind around it.

 

[JaySecrets]

If it's been proven ad nauseam, then it should be easy. Right?

If you linked something I never saw it. Link it again please.

There is nothing between god and me, she doesn't exist.

We are all stardust born of the cosmic birth of the Universe. That is a provable fact.

Even my own position isn't scientifically provable. We are talking about infinite things. We are talking about things beyond life and death. Provable things by definition have to be able to be observed, measured and repeated. Because we can't do that, All we can do is take evidence that is in place and conjecture from there. So it's not really a question of whose position is theory, it's whose theory is most reasonable. At least if you're approaching it purely from a forensics standpoint. So no what you just stated is not provable. It is not provable because you cannot go out into eternity. Spend a couple years there and then come back and say hey. This is what it's like. In fact, there's only one person who ultimately went to death, was dead for days not just a few minutes, And then came back having defeated death on his own terms and is on his own power. That's Jesus. So I'd rather take his word for it than yours if you don't mind. As for the links, I am going to put them again right below this post here because I have to go up and find where I posted the links.

Finally, the reason why I'm not getting into all the apologetics is because the subject is so huge. It would require its own section of this site just to discuss those issues. It's that big. Just read the explanation of the Trinity above this and you'll understand that that is just one small section of the subjects that would have to be addressed. Nobody has that kind of time.

But give me a second. I will go back up find the posts that I gave the Link to the book... I'm pretty sure it was the audiobook form too... That I prefer to point people to just because it's so succinct and so well written and easily digested. And there's also a couple names I will give you as well. Those are authors that have also been very good at making these bigger arguments more digestible for someone who's seeking if they're honestly seeking.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

https://www.erowid.org/experiences/

 

[JaySecrets]

https://www.audible.com/pd/I-Dont-H...CJ2MyueSqhD0xSrAK2hoCApMQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Lee Strobal

Josh McDowell

 

[JaySecrets]

There you go. I gave you a link to a really good Book in audiobook form... I actually read the book the old fashioned way ages ago, but it's a really great resource... And a couple of the best apologetics guys on the subject being asked about.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

Are you trying to invite someone to church on the internet?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Even my own position isn't scientifically provable.

No its' not but mine is, and has been, and is accepted.

Provable things by definition have to be able to be observed, measured and repeated.

And my facts are observable, have been observed, and proven.

So it's not really a question of whose position is theory, it's whose theory is most reasonable. At least if you're approaching it purely from a forensics standpoint. So no what you just stated is not provable.

Yes it is, and the proof is here, if it was not true, the internet wouldn't work.

It is not provable because you cannot go out into eternity. Spend a couple years there and then come back and say hey. This is what it's like.

You don't have to, due to the nature of light, we can look back. We're now able to see almost 13 billion years into the past.

In fact, there's only one person who ultimately went to death, was dead for days not just a few minutes, And then came back having defeated death on his own terms and is on his own power.

lol, people die everyday, and many are revived, after four days no, but hell my father died and was resuscitated.

That's Jesus. So I'd rather take his word for it than yours if you don't mind. As for the links, I am going to put them again right below this post here because I have to go up and find where I posted the links.

I appreciate you doing that.

Finally, the reason why I'm not getting into all the apologetics is because the subject is so huge. It would require its own section of this site just to discuss those issues. It's that big. Just read the explanation of the Trinity above this and you'll understand that that is just one small section of the subjects that would have to be addressed. Nobody has that kind of time.

If nobody has that time, how the hell did you do it?

'm pretty sure it was the audiobook form too...

I prefer to read. I am functionally deaf.

That I prefer to point people to just because it's so succinct and so well written and easily digested. And there's also a couple names I will give you as well. Those are authors that have also been very good at making these bigger arguments more digestible for someone who's seeking if they're honestly seeking.

Sure I'll give a one author to start with, in exchange, Stephen Hawking and the book you should start with is "The Universe in a Nutshell".

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There you go. I gave you a link to a really good Book in audiobook form... I actually read the book the old fashioned way ages ago, but it's a really great resource... And a couple of the best apologetics guys on the subject being asked about.

Got a link to a paperback...I'm deaf, as such I don't listen to audio books.