A forum to discuss how ex-Christians have dealt with family members, replaced the church as a place of community, reactions of your family, friends, church, acquaintances upon learning of the de-conversion, or anything else relevant to the Ex-Christian Life.
The bulk of science does not support belief in a deity, or does it? This is an open discussion area to hone your skills at supporting and understanding the various positions. Feel free to post any links of value in this important topic.
This section is confined to serious and formal debate. New topics will not appear in this section until approved by a moderator. For best results, contact a moderator before attempting to post a new topic in this section.
not according to Christianity's Bible they shouldn't be afraid to die,as it's put in the bible"he who loses his life for the lord shall keep it,he who seeks his life shall lose it",thereby if they are not willing to die serving God,then they are non believers,for they cannot give themselves wholly to God,because the way the bible reads,you must be all for God which includes death or you are not for God.
Wow...David Berlinski, that name takes me back! Back when I was in high school, before I even knew who the hell Jesus was, I was deeply interested in mathematics and devoured his pop-math textbook "A Tour of the Calculus." I was sad, over a decade later, to discover he was an evangelical Christian. The man has some cool insights into basic mathematics...too bad he's also a creationist.
At some point maybe I'll read this document. But at the outset it's important to recognize that science isn't a sort of moral framework to be judged by moral standards. I can think of at least one Nobel Laureate in physics (Johannes Stark) who was a future Nazi. Likewise, recall that many prominent physicists worked towards building an atomic bomb for the Nazis, and many of these people (e.g. Werner Von Braun) were later recruited in America's foray into space exploration.
Science is a methodology for arriving at the truth in a reliable way. It is a tool, and is no more responsible for evil acts committed with its aid than a hammer (or gun, if you prefer) is responsible when used in a murder. Was Hitler a believer in Darwinian evolution? I would guess the answer is "probably," even in the 30s most educated people accepted modern science. But before we even begin to answer that question, it's important to emphasize that Hitler's belief or disbelief in accepted science has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of said science. We who don't believe in gods are fond of saying "the beauty of science is that it works whether or not you believe in it." Let's take that to heart: it works, so who cares if Hitler believed in it?
Personally, I wouldn't bother entertaining the notion that any scientific theory is more or less true because Hitler believed it.
sorry about that someone told me my font was tiny and a mod told me to use a proper format,what combo do you guys here use,times new roman and font size 12(what I used in school) or 20,I'm on a phone so it's tough to tell what is best...
Geezer, I happened to go to a Reformed Baptist church where the pastors discussed the topic of textual criticism pretty heavily, and indeed embraced it as evidence of the Bible's authenticity. I also studied this independently, pretty early on in my life as a Christian. I was a strong Christian at the time that Dr. Ehrman became popular, and was genuinely surprised that his works caused anyone to waiver in their faith. From my perspective, he wasn't saying anything that I didn't already know. For better or worse, I can wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that "the intentional dumbing down of the church for the sake of filling more pews will ultimately lead to defection from Christ." As a Christian I always felt that failure to teach about textual criticism would ultimately lead to weak Christians. I felt similarly about the church's embrace of foolish worship music with intellectually deficient lyrics.
The existence of churches like mine, which did tell the truth to a greater extent than most, necessitates that we ex-Christians can't simply rely on the Bart Ehrmans of academia to debunk the myths of Christianity. Dr. Ehrman is capable of swaying Christians who were convinced to follow Jesus on the basis of vacuous evidence. Sadly, some Christians (like my former self) are persuaded by slightly more robust beliefs.
Besides, even if it can be shown that the austrian moustache was a "Darwinian" (and we all know they really mean "atheist")... so what?
He didn't commit all those unspeakable crimes with his own hands exclusively, did he?
Morontheists desperately regurgibabbling "hitler was an athiest!!!!111!!!!!!oneoneone!!!!!!!" ignore that of the millions of Germans who willingly obeyed his orders, the vast majority were... you guessed it!... christians. Where were the oh-so-praised christian morals during those 12 years?
Thanks for reading and for the kind words!
I didn't think of Hebrews 11:1 while writing my post... Should've included it because that verse is a doozy!
I'm glad that you found the bullet points useful. Feel free to use them however you'd like!
For the record, everyone is free to use whatever I post on this site in whatever way they want.
Also, I'm sorry to hear about Mrs. MOHO. Does she know you are not a Christian anymore?
I didn't know there were that many gospels being considered originally. But somehow I'm not really surprised.
Thanks for reading!