Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well shit, Drich...you just turned someone into another one of those unwinnable souls. You're really good at this evangelism stuff. Reminds me of a prophecy I heard once, about a man who would come proclaiming to be saviour........and then lead people to perdition.

[Angrboda]

You aren't that simple Drich.  You're obviously dancing around the truth that you embellished your story.

Obvious??? You have several different examples of me telling this story, and can't cite One instance of me contradicting, nor do you have one example of me changing the core text or direction of this story. All signs or examples of embellishment. Yet you claim the so called embellishments are obvious. Obvious to whom? those who will take any road besides the one that leads to belief?

Again, what you fail to grasp, is that these things that happened to me are not the beginning nor the end of your proof your potential journey. These things were my proof mile markers in my journey. God has offered the Holy Spirit to you, which means whatever you need for you to establish and maintain your belief will be provided to your specifically.

Then some atheist douche can tell you that your making everything up when you share the amazing things God will do for you.

And you still haven't backed up that the cause of the pain is separation and not physical torment.  You've simply chosen to champion a modern interpretation of hell and discount a classical one.  Both versions are there in the bible, so you just picked the one that fit your presupposition.  That isn't 'confirmation', that's simply choosing one over the other.

We are not done yet:
Luke 13:
Jesus said, 24 “The door to heaven is narrow. Try hard to enter it. Many people will want to enter there, but they will not be able to go in. 25 If a man locks the door of his house, you can stand outside and knock on the door, but he won’t open it. You can say, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from?’ 26 Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you. You taught in the streets of our town.’ 27 Then he will say to you, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from? Get away from me! You are all people who do wrong!’

28 “You will see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in God’s kingdom. But you will be left outside. There you will cry and grind your teeth with pain. 29 People will come from the east, west, north, and south. They will sit down at the table in God’s kingdom. 30 People who have the lowest place in life now will have the highest place in God’s kingdom. And people who have the highest place now will have the lowest place in God’s kingdom.”
In verse 28 the only thing done to the people "outside the Kingdom of Heaven" was the seperation and yet they experience tremdous pain.

That said I do not believe the 'classical view' and this one contradict one another but one gives context to the type of pain felt.

The translation you've chosen takes liberties with the original. The original doesn't say, "with pain." Try again.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/13.htm

The text is ambiguous.  Dispelling that ambiguity with your own spin doesn't amount to biblical support.  It amounts to you reading things into the text.

No. It's only ambiguous if you want to represent Gehenna as being the only literal Hell. The text is clear in describing hell. In those descriptions we have attributes not found in Gehenna nor anywhere else on the planet which only leaves the spiritual plain/The type of place where Heaven is also found. Is it REALLY A Leap for you to concede that Heaven and Hell were never meant to be understood as being on this planet?

You're assuming the bible makes literal sense and doesn't contradict itself. Nobody knows why Gehenna was chosen as the symbol, and certainly not you. It takes a leap, whichever way you go. You just want to deny that you've made any leaps.

First off, you didn't quote contradicting BCV.  Second, your claim that I dropped the subject is a flat out lie.  Anyone can plainly see that I was the last to respond.

My mistake I didn't follow the thread for whatever reason.
And I did provide BCV that contradicted your telling.

It's simple.  In Genesis 1, the animals didn't appear until day six.  You claim that Genesis 2 all occurs on the third day.  Genesis 2:19 clearly states there are animals.  If Genesis 1 is accurate, that can only be on the sixth day.  So it's impossible that all of Genesis 2 occurred on the third day if there were animals.  There were no animals until day 6.  That you can't see the blatant contradiction there is ridiculous.

Actually it's simpler than that.
Genesis 1 to Gensis 2:4 is a 7 day creation over view of how God created and populated the planet as a whole. Genesis 2:5 forward is a garden narritive that all took place day 3 apart from the genesis 1 overview.

Or are you one of the ones so foolish to think that this 'contradiction' would have been left alone for literally thousands of years without some attention being made to it.

How can we be sure Genesis 2 is a Garden/day 3 account?
Because it spells it out in plain english:
Gen2:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (This happened" Meaning the Following narritive happened on the DAY God made the Earth and sky but before
5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So.. then one asks himself, What Day Did God Make the Earth and Sky? And What Day did God make the plants? God made the earth and Sky day three and plants on Day 4.

So that means the following narrative all happened on the Day God made the earth and sky, but before he made plants. Which means the Genesis 2 account is a garden creation account. Meaning that Man and animals in the garden were separate than man and animals outside of the garden.

You're insane.

You're just spinning your wheels, Drich.  That's your interpretation and it's not biblical.

That's B/S you people are the first to judge and condemn who God is often citing a verse about slavery or killing women and children proclaiming from your own self righteousness that you could NEVER worship a God like this!!!

Who is God outside of Law, Decrees and Biblicaly recorded behavior? We don't/can't possible know. So to build your house on anything other than what Jesus has told us about Him and God is like building on sand. That's not me sport that is all bible.

Because what you people naturally do (ascribe the negative characteristics of God from biblical accounts of slavery and prescribed death) is the Same measure from which Christ Himself uses to associate building on the sand or a rock.

I think we've gone round this block enough times. You're just circling the wagons here. You've synthesized a message that itself is nowhere in the bible. End.

 You've extended the parable of the wise and foolish builders to encompass your personal theology.

And what you are failing to do is establish that God's nature is separate from his laws and decrees. Soorry Jorge, but you are going to have to try harder than that. We have scripture that tells us we know the nature of God through the laws and commands he has given us. Rom 1 28 tells us that "true knoweledge of God is found in His laws
28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do.

You have the whackiest interpretation of things.

 First off, the parable doesn't support your interpretation as it pertains exclusively to the sermon on the mount, whereas you're trying to make it apply to the bible as a whole.

Actually it doesn't. It says:24 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock.

"HIS TEACHINGS." are what are being identified in this passage not the specific sermon, nor the teaching only found in this specific sermon. How can I possibly say this? Because this teaching/parable is also found in luke 6 where no such 'sermon on the mount' was tied to his use of this parable, but they were tied to another set of instructions. Now who is reading between the lines?

Wrong. Look again at the original in an interlinear bible. You're expanding the scope of what he's saying. It applies only to his words which excludes Paul, for one.

Second, you're arguing a version of sola scriptura which is nowhere advocated in the bible itself.

Nuupe. I am working off of 2 tim 3:16 that all scripture is God Breathed and good for the use of teaching correcting and reproof...

It's very simple really. I want to follow and worship the God of the bible so I use the bible as my primary source for this effort. I also use my experiences and the experiences of others as long as they coincide with scriptural teaching.

The God of the BIBLE is not found in the traditions of man, but in the bible. Now I did not say God can not be access through the traditions of Man I said He is not found in them. Meaning while you can find salvation in many if not all Jesus Christ centered church, No one will argue that all Jesus Christ centered churches yield the same spiritual exposure/Fruit that the bible describes.

I am search/found the Spiritual fruit the bible promises, and it was far from the traditions of men. For those who want traditions. God has made a provision for them. For those who want Spiritual fruit God has equally provided for them.

I've seen enough of your crazy interpretations not to trust your version of the bible. A separate creation in the garden of Eden? Yeah, right.

 You have Drichology, not any 'biblical Christianity'.  If you knew anything about the interpretation of texts, you'd know that your claim to a bible based Christianity is a sales pitch, not something that can be a reality.  Your 'interpretation' is as much an invention of your personal theology as any Church's is.  You don't have a priviliged view of the meaning of the bible, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

Ah, no. Sorry again jorge, but you are speaking to sterotypes and have repeated failed to demonstrate that you even have a basic understanding of what it is I teach here. you have systematically failed to present evidence to support your 'embellishment' charge despite having full access to several different examples of me sharing this story.

False.

You have failed to proper give a synopsis of my teaching on Hell (seem you thought I taught Hell did not include pain)

Again false.

You have failed in your exegesis of the parable of the wise and foolish builders as only appling to the sermon on the mount, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV .

I neglected Luke 6, but even that doesn't save you.

You have failed in your assumption that I persume I am the only 'right' person here.

False again. You presume you are right period, and I have pointed out how that confidence is misplaced, as have others.

So it is no wonder your final synopsis based on all of these failures also amounts to a big fail when you compile everything you 'think' you know.

Given that you systematically misunderstand everything I say to you, you're in no position to make this judgement.

[emjay]

Okay Drich, one last go. If you won't go to the source, I'll bring it to you:

There are two ways to think about association in the brain. The simple way is if neuron A synapses with neuron B and both A and B are firing at the same time, association is the strengthening of the synaptic strength between them as a function of the activity in both neurons, associating the two neurons so that B is more likely to fire if A is firing. This strengthening of the synaptic strengths is a function of both how active the post-synaptic neuron is (B) and the pre-synaptic neuron (A) and roughly translates to saying the more active B is the more the synaptic strength with increase relative to how active A is. This is roughly the way it is modelled in Emergent and that is based on the underlying biology. The second way of thinking about association, and the way I mostly think about it and where I see the beauty, builds on the first and is the effect of neurons X and Y both synapsing with neuron Z combined with bidirectional connectivity - which is to say neuron Z also synapses with neurons X and Y but going the other way. The same principles apply for the changing of the weights as for A and B above but in this case Z can be said to 'bind' X and Y... it becomes a detector for X and Y and is more likely to fire if both of them are active (according to the weight distribution between them). So in this usage, X becomes associated with Y through Z. And neural network dynamics will make it that the feedback synaptic strengths from Z to X and Y will tend to closely mirror the input synaptic strengths from X and Y to Z... so if I notate a synapse as X>Y then Y>X comes to be roughly the same. The effect of this is to create bias and allow for pattern completion, so if X fires and Y does not, but X still manages to activate Z even to a small degree then Z will start sending activation back to X and Y proportional to the weights. This will increase the activity of the already firing X, provide bias in Y to become active (so it requires less input current from elsewhere to activate), and increase the firing of Z as a result of the increased activity of X, which with then feedback more etc. In short it's a feedback loop that allows a whole context of related connections to be 'bootstrapped' into action very quickly based on very little initial input. To stop the feedback running away with itself, there are inhibitory interneurons which output inhibitory current to offset the excitatory current coming into neurons. So in this case Z would synapse with an inhibitory interneuron which in turn synapses with Z and fires proportionally to the activation of Z, stopping it from getting over-excited and allowing the network to settle into a stable state. So once you have a learned set of associations - spanning many related 'binding' neurons... what I call a context - this process allows it to become completely activated in leaps and bounds based on very small amounts of well-placed input from outside. Each little input will cause feedback activation that will cascade through the whole context, activating some neurons and biasing others as it goes, with the activated ones now contributing in the same way, speeding it up even more.

So if I want to recall some long distant memory, I think about it in these terms, knowing that if I can find the right input, it could bootstrap the whole thing in vivid detail. But if I keep coming up against a mental block, it means that the input I'm providing is peripheral to the context and is not well-placed enough to start a useful cascade. So for instance even if there is a whole tree of associations that I manage to activate, if they are only associated with another whole tree - the one I want to activate - through a small weight with a binding neuron, then however active that first tree is, it will not be able to trigger the binding neuron which would provide the bootstrapping feedback to the second tree. This is what I would call a red herring and is the equivalent of the context changes in Alice in Wonderland... a tear becomes a sea and the whole context changes with nothing else in common between the first scene and the second. So in that situation, remembering anything from the first scene will not activate anything from the second scene because the only point of entry is through that tear (or perhaps Alice herself... that would provide a little bit of activation, and thus bias, in the second scene) or something in the second scene.

The bolded is what I meant by bias in the context of bidirectional neural networks. It is a direct effect of the bidirectional connectivity and if you read this post you may come to understand why. You say my understanding of this is biased, but I ask you, how can it be? It is a simply a description of a process.

[Drich]

Obvious??? You have several different examples of me telling this story, and can't cite One instance of me contradicting, nor do you have one example of me changing the core text or direction of this story. All signs or examples of embellishment. Yet you claim the so called embellishments are obvious. Obvious to whom? those who will take any road besides the one that leads to belief?

Again, what you fail to grasp, is that these things that happened to me are not the beginning nor the end of your proof your potential journey. These things were my proof mile markers in my journey. God has offered the Holy Spirit to you, which means whatever you need for you to establish and maintain your belief will be provided to your specifically.

Then some atheist douche can tell you that your making everything up when you share the amazing things God will do for you.

We are not done yet:
Luke 13:
Jesus said, 24 “The door to heaven is narrow. Try hard to enter it. Many people will want to enter there, but they will not be able to go in. 25 If a man locks the door of his house, you can stand outside and knock on the door, but he won’t open it. You can say, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from?’ 26 Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you. You taught in the streets of our town.’ 27 Then he will say to you, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from? Get away from me! You are all people who do wrong!’

28 “You will see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in God’s kingdom. But you will be left outside. There you will cry and grind your teeth with pain. 29 People will come from the east, west, north, and south. They will sit down at the table in God’s kingdom. 30 People who have the lowest place in life now will have the highest place in God’s kingdom. And people who have the highest place now will have the lowest place in God’s kingdom.”
In verse 28 the only thing done to the people "outside the Kingdom of Heaven" was the seperation and yet they experience tremdous pain.

That said I do not believe the 'classical view' and this one contradict one another but one gives context to the type of pain felt.

The translation you've chosen takes liberties with the original.  The original doesn't say, "with pain."  Try again.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/13.htm

No. It's only ambiguous if you want to represent Gehenna as being the only literal Hell. The text is clear in describing hell. In those descriptions we have attributes not found in Gehenna nor anywhere else on the planet which only leaves the spiritual plain/The type of place where Heaven is also found. Is it REALLY A Leap for you to concede that Heaven and Hell were never meant to be understood as being on this planet?

You're assuming the bible makes literal sense and doesn't contradict itself.  Nobody knows why Gehenna was chosen as the symbol, and certainly not you.  It takes a leap, whichever way you go.  You just want to deny that you've made any leaps.

My mistake I didn't follow the thread for whatever reason.
And I did provide BCV that contradicted your telling.
Actually it's simpler than that.
Genesis 1 to Gensis 2:4 is a 7 day creation over view of how God created and populated the planet as a whole. Genesis 2:5 forward is a garden narritive that all took place day 3 apart from the genesis 1 overview.

Or are you one of the ones so foolish to think that this 'contradiction' would have been left alone for literally thousands of years without some attention being made to it.

How can we be sure Genesis 2 is a Garden/day 3 account?
Because it spells it out in plain english:
Gen2:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (This happened" Meaning the Following narritive happened on the DAY God made the Earth and sky but before
5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So.. then one asks himself, What Day Did God Make the Earth and Sky? And What Day did God make the plants? God made the earth and Sky day three and plants on Day 4.

So that means the following narrative all happened on the Day God made the earth and sky, but before he made plants. Which means the Genesis 2 account is a garden creation account. Meaning that Man and animals in the garden were separate than man and animals outside of the garden.

You're insane.  

That's B/S you people are the first to judge and condemn who God is often citing a verse about slavery or killing women and children proclaiming from your own self righteousness that you could NEVER worship a God like this!!!

Who is God outside of Law, Decrees and Biblicaly recorded behavior? We don't/can't possible know. So to build your house on anything other than what Jesus has told us about Him and God is like building on sand. That's not me sport that is all bible.

Because what you people naturally do (ascribe the negative characteristics of God from biblical accounts of slavery and prescribed death) is the Same measure from which Christ Himself uses to associate building on the sand or a rock.

I think we've gone round this block enough times.  You're just circling the wagons here.  You've synthesized a message that itself is nowhere in the bible.  End.

And what you are failing to do is establish that God's nature is separate from his laws and decrees. Soorry Jorge, but you are going to have to try harder than that. We have scripture that tells us we know the nature of God through the laws and commands he has given us. Rom 1 28 tells us that "true knoweledge of God is found in His laws
28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do.

You have the whackiest interpretation of things.

Actually it doesn't. It says:24 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock.

"HIS TEACHINGS." are what are being identified in this passage not the specific sermon, nor the teaching only found in this specific sermon. How can I possibly say this? Because this teaching/parable is also found in luke 6 where no such 'sermon on the mount' was tied to his use of this parable, but they were tied to another set of instructions. Now who is reading between the lines?

Wrong.  Look again at the original in an interlinear bible.  You're expanding the scope of what he's saying.  It applies only to his words which excludes Paul, for one.

Nuupe. I am working off of 2 tim 3:16 that all scripture is God Breathed and good for the use of teaching correcting and reproof...

It's very simple really. I want to follow and worship the God of the bible so I use the bible as my primary source for this effort. I also use my experiences and the experiences of others as long as they coincide with scriptural teaching.

The God of the BIBLE is not found in the traditions of man, but in the bible. Now I did not say God can not be access through the traditions of Man I said He is not found in them. Meaning while you can find salvation in many if not all Jesus Christ centered church, No one will argue that all Jesus Christ centered churches yield the same spiritual exposure/Fruit that the bible describes.

I am search/found the Spiritual fruit the bible promises, and it was far from the traditions of men. For those who want traditions. God has made a provision for them. For those who want Spiritual fruit God has equally provided for them.

I've seen enough of your crazy interpretations not to trust your version of the bible.  A separate creation in the garden of Eden?  Yeah, right.

Ah, no. Sorry again jorge, but you are speaking to sterotypes and have repeated failed to demonstrate that you even have a basic understanding of what it is I teach here. you have systematically failed to present evidence to support your 'embellishment' charge despite having full access to several different examples of me sharing this story.

False.

You have failed to proper give a synopsis of my teaching on Hell (seem you thought I taught Hell did not include pain)

Again false.

You have failed in your exegesis of the parable of the wise and foolish builders as only appling to the sermon on the mount, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV .

I neglected Luke 6, but even that doesn't save you.

You have failed in your assumption that I persume I am the only 'right' person here.

False again.  You presume you are right period, and I have pointed out how that confidence is misplaced, as have others.

So it is no wonder your final synopsis based on all of these failures also amounts to a big fail when you compile everything you 'think' you know.

Given that you systematically misunderstand everything I say to you, you're in no position to make this judgement.

Soo, youre just going to say "wrong" a bunch of times and call me crazy... Basically you've reduced your argument to a series of "nut-huh's"

If we are truly there then I'll leave you to your argument.

[Drich]

Okay Drich, one last go. If you won't go to the source, I'll bring it to you:

There are two ways to think about association in the brain. The simple way is if neuron A synapses with neuron B and both A and B are firing at the same time, association is the strengthening of the synaptic strength between them as a function of the activity in both neurons, associating the two neurons so that B is more likely to fire if A is firing. This strengthening of the synaptic strengths is a function of both how active the post-synaptic neuron is (B) and the pre-synaptic neuron (A) and roughly translates to saying the more active B is the more the synaptic strength with increase relative to how active A is. This is roughly the way it is modelled in Emergent and that is based on the underlying biology. The second way of thinking about association, and the way I mostly think about it and where I see the beauty, builds on the first and is the effect of neurons X and Y both synapsing with neuron Z combined with bidirectional connectivity - which is to say neuron Z also synapses with neurons X and Y but going the other way. The same principles apply for the changing of the weights as for A and B above but in this case Z can be said to 'bind' X and Y... it becomes a detector for X and Y and is more likely to fire if both of them are active (according to the weight distribution between them). So in this usage, X becomes associated with Y through Z. And neural network dynamics will make it that the feedback synaptic strengths from Z to X and Y will tend to closely mirror the input synaptic strengths from X and Y to Z... so if I notate a synapse as X>Y then Y>X comes to be roughly the same. The effect of this is to create bias and allow for pattern completion, so if X fires and Y does not, but X still manages to activate Z even to a small degree then Z will start sending activation back to X and Y proportional to the weights. This will increase the activity of the already firing X, provide bias in Y to become active (so it requires less input current from elsewhere to activate), and increase the firing of Z as a result of the increased activity of X, which with then feedback more etc. In short it's a feedback loop that allows a whole context of related connections to be 'bootstrapped' into action very quickly based on very little initial input. To stop the feedback running away with itself, there are inhibitory interneurons which output inhibitory current to offset the excitatory current coming into neurons. So in this case Z would synapse with an inhibitory interneuron which in turn synapses with Z and fires proportionally to the activation of Z, stopping it from getting over-excited and allowing the network to settle into a stable state. So once you have a learned set of associations - spanning many related 'binding' neurons... what I call a context - this process allows it to become completely activated in leaps and bounds based on very small amounts of well-placed input from outside. Each little input will cause feedback activation that will cascade through the whole context, activating some neurons and biasing others as it goes, with the activated ones now contributing in the same way, speeding it up even more.

So if I want to recall some long distant memory, I think about it in these terms, knowing that if I can find the right input, it could bootstrap the whole thing in vivid detail. But if I keep coming up against a mental block, it means that the input I'm providing is peripheral to the context and is not well-placed enough to start a useful cascade. So for instance even if there is a whole tree of associations that I manage to activate, if they are only associated with another whole tree - the one I want to activate - through a small weight with a binding neuron, then however active that first tree is, it will not be able to trigger the binding neuron which would provide the bootstrapping feedback to the second tree. This is what I would call a red herring and is the equivalent of the context changes in Alice in Wonderland... a tear becomes a sea and the whole context changes with nothing else in common between the first scene and the second. So in that situation, remembering anything from the first scene will not activate anything from the second scene because the only point of entry is through that tear (or perhaps Alice herself... that would provide a little bit of activation, and thus bias, in the second scene) or something in the second scene.

The bolded is what I meant by bias in the context of bidirectional neural networks. It is a direct effect of the bidirectional connectivity and if you read this post you may come to understand why. You say my understanding of this is biased, but I ask you, how can it be? It is a simply a description of a process.

citation please

[Heatheness]

No evidence of any gods of any kind at any time in history. No evidence of supernature of any kind at any time in history.

When there is, I'll reconsider.

[Drich]

Well shit, Drich...you just turned someone into another one of those unwinnable souls.  You're really good at this evangelism stuff.  Reminds me of a prophecy I heard once, about a man who would come proclaiming to be saviour........and then lead people to perdition.

what you fail to understand, is I am not one who believes in 'winning souls.'
I believe we are called by God to salvation. If one's pride demands that they run or hate something because it offends them even if it is the truth, then that person has put his pride before God's call to salvation and there is absolutely nothing I can do for them, even if they were indeed called.

Pride is the first thing one has to be willing to let God when going before God. If it the core of your being then I was never meant to help you. That however does not mean your questions, your pride is not something someone else is struggling with as well, and by your failed example someone else learns to put down what you may hold so tightly to. Which is why I make my rounds with those like you.

You maybe the Sabot the ensures someone else's place in Heaven.

[Drich]

No evidence of any gods of any kind at any time in history. No evidence of supernature of any kind at any time in history.

When there is, I'll reconsider.

Not true. what else you got?

[Heatheness]

No evidence of any gods of any kind at any time in history. No evidence of supernature of any kind at any time in history.

When there is, I'll reconsider.

Not true. what else you got?

Not true and you got nothin'.

[account_inactive]

No evidence of any gods of any kind at any time in history. No evidence of supernature of any kind at any time in history.

When there is, I'll reconsider.

Not true. what else you got?

............