Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/09/2019 in Posts

  1. 5 points
    I think politics is in the same, ''sham category'' as Religion. It's all bogus, fraudulent and misleading. People are frustrated and tired of all the promises only to see a few ever taken care of. I don't really believe most of the ''higher uppers'' in politics really give a damn about the low to middle class people. I had a best friend who is now an upper class person (and quite rich I might add) because her husband is very involved and high up in politics. You would never think she was once my best friend she's such a snob. Canada is no different with low voters..People have lost hope. We have the same fights here in Canada as the Us and anywhere else in the world. At least the U.S. is so much more fun to watch... as much as I feel terrible about what is happening to the U.S and it's people and I do think they better get out and vote to get the poisonous, traitor who is their president out of office.. Our Canadian politics are totally boring except when our Prime Minister dresses up in his many costumes. He likes to fit in with everyone. Lol But after the votes are in, we don't get a say on anything anymore. They make the decisions once they are in and we are left to like it or lump it once they change their minds about an issue being the ''big head guy'' now. We've almost become a communist country with so many god-damned rules at what you can do and what you can't do, it's not freedom. Yeah, we are allowed to open our own business and many others things that give people the illusion that people are 'free'... but we are not. They say we have free healthcare? Nope. We pay lot's of taxes to go along with the 'free' health care. The cost of living is through the elfin' roof here. Most people I know are struggling to make ends meet and both partners have jobs. People are discouraged and that why the numbers of voters is way down. I think politics and having these fantastic, intelligent leaders (you know...we humans must be governed!) is a laugh. It is a hoax and part of the '' keep you under control system.'' Most politicians eventually turn somewhat corrupt once they learn how the system works.. I guess you can see I am discouraged? I think I am just going to vote for the most handsome one running..or maybe the prettiest woman. Or not vote at all. Don't get me totally wrong. I am very grateful for the things I have and I understand that I am very lucky person to be born in a relatively, sane part of the earth. Pessimist..... over and out..... Lol
  2. 3 points
    What kind of sick-ass motherfucker needs little girls being raped as part of his plan?
  3. 3 points
    So to answer the question if it's impossible to reason with a Christian, I think this thread demonstrates the affirmative rather well.
  4. 3 points
    Sometimes I like to sport some Pagan/Witchy looking stuff. It pisses people off. Obviously I don't expect spells to work any more than Christian prayers do. But Pagan and Satanic shit looks cool and causes comments. I'm a troublemaker.
  5. 2 points
    Since recognizing the problems with traditional Christian theology, I have been through numerous phases; I've had neopagan leanings, made a transition from there toward Taoism and more recently identified with Deism. I haven't discarded any of these as patently false; it feels more like moving from room to room in a large house built of spiritual and philosophical possibilities. Some might dismiss this as the proverbial "cafeteria religion", but I would remind such critics that if they're going to compare spirituality to nutrition, they should concede that a balanced diet requires variety. Thus I now find myself mindful of what each of these spiritual directions has given me. Deism has provided me with an intellectual approach to metaphysics and a way to ponder the mechanistics of a material cosmos and the phenomenon of its existence. Taoism, from its Eastern approach, has shown me the universe as an organism in the flow and harmony of its being. Neopaganism has put personal faces on the transpersonal forces of life and given me a way to relate to the universe being-to-being. I consider all as having merit and none as mutually exclusive.
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    I looked at their website and the footnote for this section offered nothing so I'm going to take a guess. Given what they seemed to be saying elsewhere the argument appears to be that these particular slaves, the ones we're talking about here and no others, were more along the lines of indentured servants. The Jews did tend towards this when we're talking about slavery with other Jews but when we talk about Jews taking non-Jewish slaves then it was essentially the same as any other slavery you might imagine. So to ensure we're on the same page I'm going to say they're talking about Jews enslaving Jews which amounts to a sort of indentured servitude. In this case the rules would mean that they are freed at some point (I'm not going to look up the rules to make sure I get them right since the specifics don't matter here). If this is the case then what this would mean is that they're saying you have a person who becomes enslaved for some reason (usually their own personally failing, like a debtor or some or such thing), and then their master could beat them but they don't want them to die (because they wouldn't get repaid or whatever). If we think about other forms of slavery, such as with foreigners, then this changes a bit since the slave is never released (unless the master makes it so). The master could also suffer a loss here since slaves cost money but not quite in the same way as someone being held as forced labor (since you never have to buy them and, I believe, you get to hold them for a fixed period of time so they can work the debt and then some). I don't know why the site doesn't notify you via email. Sorry. Have you checked you spam folder just in case it's going there? mwc
  8. 2 points
    Agree with all of this. Life is easy when you have choices you can make and aren't limited. The world is yours then in many ways and even disadvantages can be overcome somewhat. But add factors like disability and illness in spite of "free" health Care, the ridiculous cost of living, the fact many are in debt, the fact minimum wage isn't anywhere near supporting the cost of living, the list goes on... Once they're elected, they're in it for themselves no matter what ideals they had entering it. I look at JT and understand why people get disillusioned with him, son of a rich wealthy prominent family, how can he relate to an ordinary Canadian who faces struggles he has never seen? When "democracy" favors the rich and wealthy you never end up with politicians who have any real measure of depth or substance to them. People gain character and experience through real challenge.
  9. 2 points
    What would be the point or value of that? It sounds more like a desperate excuse for the clusterfuck that is Christian theology.
  10. 2 points
    "Democracy’s doubters tend to accuse democracy of suffering from at least five significant design flaws: Short-termism: Due to their electoral cycles, democracies struggle to focus on long-term problems and usually remain mired in short-term policy approaches. Pain aversion: To the limited extent they do manage to look to the long term, democratic politicians are averse to imposing near-term pain for long-term gain because of their need to keep voters happy for the next election. Elite capture: By opening up decision-making power to competition among politicians who are constantly in need of money for elections, democratic systems are prone to becoming captured by the wealthy. Division and conflict: Competitive elections foment or exacerbate destructive societal divisions, generating conflict and undercutting a strong sense of national unity and purpose. Voter ignorance: Relying on ordinary citizens to choose leaders and make judgments among them based on policy performance condemns democracies to leadership and policy choices that reflect chronic voter ignorance and irrationality." Certainly our systems only allow the wealthy to compete for the positions of power, while talented, enthusiastic people without financial backing cannot get considered. It is estimated that Hillary Clinton spent ~$700m while Trump spent ~$400m on their campaigns.
  11. 2 points
    Hi Kdeaustin. Change is always scary and the bigger the change the more scary. Nevertheless congratulations on trusting your own (god given?) reasoning abilities and gut feelings regarding right and wrong over the powerful influences exerted on you by you christian pier group to control your thoughts. As you gradually come to trust your own reasoning more and more your life view will become much more firm and reliable than one supplied to you by the group think church goers and the confusing contradictory "guidance" found in their bible. That new foundation will be one you can build on with thoughts than can be trusted and examined as closely as you choose and the fear (unfounded fear} will then start to fade. You might take some comfort from the fact that 2/3s of our present population on earth does not believe in the bible or christianity. If the christian god is so concerned for each and every human how can he do such an extremely poor job of reaching them and then the powerful holy spirit unleashed on humanity some 2,000+ years ago but Islam (which believes it is blasphemy to call the human Jesus a god) is the fastest growing religion set to catch the christian plurality by 2050. You are clearly having a dangerously difficult time with this transition so keep up with secular professional help until you find a safe place in your thoughts and emotions. I hope you will engage with us on the things that are being said here. The more we know about your concerns and what kinds of ideas you find helpful the more we'll be able to help you. We look forward to hearing from you when you have time. Thank you for sharing your story,
  12. 2 points
    I have no idea why you should all have the same discernment at the same time, nor what it would accomplish. That was not the point I was making. It seems to me, though, that there should be more consistency in interpretation, if an omniscient god were making a genuine effort to reveal himself.
  13. 2 points
    Edgarcito. That transcript was an example of two devout Christians finding it impossible to reason with each over just one verse. When you read the transcript you arrived at a different understanding to theirs. "I'm gathering Paul considered himself one with Christ as Jesus was one with the Father?" Then you said that you didn't actually hold with your initial assumption. "I personally don't agree with that because Paul also mentions doing things he doesn't wish to do on occasion." So, that's three different Christians, arriving at four different understandings of just one verse. There are over 31,000 verses in the whole Bible and billions of Christians in thousands of different denominations, sects and cults, within which there are different shades of opinion, different interpretations and different personal positions on various issues of translation, authenticity and exegesis. Do you really think that billions of Christians can successfully reason with each other over the billions of possible interpretations they all have of scripture? When two Christians fail to do so over one just one verse? ?
  14. 1 point
    Well, at least Edgarcito has changed his stance from being covertly evasive to being overtly evasive.
  15. 1 point
    ...and even after 11 pages of asking, they aren't being answered.
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    When someone is devastated because someone broke up with them, I always say, “on the one hand, that sucks; but on the other hand, welcome to the human race.” We owe a lot of songs to that phenomenon. It doesn’t sound like you can tell us too much about what happened; and if our generalities don’t help much, you might need to find someone to talk to in person. Most therapists etc. do not operate from a christian perspective; there are plenty of ways to deal with issues like this without resorting to divine intervention.
  18. 1 point
    ...Answers in Genesis - the people who think that the flintstones is a documentary (Humans walking with dinosaurs) Ken Ham, their leader, has publicly stated that there is nothing that can change his mind. Therefore I don't think we can count on them for an unbiased look at slavery can we?
  19. 1 point
    Here in NZ we have the local government elections going on at the moment. They are reporting the lowest turnout ever: "Voter turnout for this Saturday's local elections is heading for a record low, with the national turnout considered unlikely to be above 40 per cent." In Wellington region - "As of noon on Friday, electoral officers lamented dismal returns, at an average of only 16.7 per cent - compared with 20.03 per cent in 2016. Wellington city is among the lowest, at only 10 per cent" The problems seen in NZ are not specific to our country with many Western nations showing similar patterns: "Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. During this same period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations" There are many reasons for the decrease in voting, from the feeling of lacking impact and change, to access to voting booths, to the cost or time requirements or a lack of candidates who represent the voters views. And while some suggestions have been made such as online voting or making election days a national holiday, so far there is no data to confirm that these steps will make a great difference. They certainly can't hurt to make access easier and the cost to people less, but if you don't care about the process then those things won't change your mind. What we find is massive amounts of people want change. They don't necessarily know what they want it to change to, just that the current system isn't great. In NZ we had a vote to change the democratic system from first pass the post to one of several other choices. All polls showed the majority of the population had no idea what the different systems were, but that everyone was keen on something different, and so MMP was voted in. Now having this system many people are saying it is either no better or possibly worse. Obama's great slogan was "Change" and it worked as people love the idea, even when they don't know how things should change. Maybe a bit of "the grass is always greener"? I would love to see the system change to a technocracy, where people were getting office due to their skills, education and quality of their work, rather than how much TV time they managed to get. Bill Clinton jumped in the polls when he played saxophone on TV, and yet most of the people voting for him had no idea of his policies. Arnie as governor, Regan as president, Jesse Ventura as governor... fame can get you to the top regardless of what you know, what you stand for and how educated you are. I think there would be a lot of support for a system change, but I think the system is designed to make such change impossible.
  20. 1 point
    Evil does not invariably prevail?!! How so? Hitlers reign came to an end only after he inflicted immeasurable pain and death to millions. How did evil not prevail?! I live in a town where there was a serial killer in the early 70s killing children. He was never caught. I've been to a country in Latin America where women and children and elderly living in rural areas are regularly abused and killed with no consequence because there is virtually no police presence. When the police are involved, they are easily bribed. You need only to study or travel slightly outside whatever physical and mental confines you live within to understand that happy endings are random . . . and certainly never guaranteed. But let me guess . . . In order to make sense of a god that would allow this kind of shit through his masterful purpose for everyone, you have to believe that karma will come in the afterlife . . . Unless of course the evil culprit pulls a Ted Bundy . . . .confesses all sins and no matter how atrocious his earthly sins were, he (or she) is forgiven and there is no justice. I remember as a kid my mom telling me the story of a Nazi who came to know Christ - of course AFTER he murdered who knows how many Jews. All those unsaved Jews were murdered and then went straight to hell because, afterall, they didnt believe Jesus Christ was their lord and savior. But the Nazi guard, well he bypassed hell. I couldn't make sense of this as a child. Tell me, how does this make sense to a Christian?
  21. 1 point
    I was raised to be a YEC. It took an embarrassingly long time for me to move on. On the plus side, though, the realization that that part was bull led me to question what other parts might also be, and here we are.
  22. 1 point
    Remember----I specifically said I am working toward demonstrating whether edgarcito's original premise has merit. I don't really care about the existence of deity in general; but, rather, the specific deity in question.
  23. 1 point
    Best I can do is guess; and my best guess is that most apologetics is based on some form of dishonesty. Likely this is the same.
  24. 1 point
    My pleasure. Just keep in mind that I'm still fumbling my way through the Cosmic Conundrum myself----I don't claim to have any definite answers; all I can do is relate my own experience & let you judge it as you deem fitting.
  25. 1 point
    Yes, I believe that the Bible *says* that, but that doesn't mean it's really why rainbows appear.
  26. 1 point
    Probably means render unto Caesar that salad which is Caesar's salad and toss your own salad or whoever's salad you want.
  27. 1 point
    I know this thread is some months old, but it seems to refer to a continuing issue. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna879346
  28. 1 point
    I have incomplete data on the flying spaghetti monster. Should I therefore believe he might exist? How about the angel Moroni?
  29. 1 point
    The problem with your question is that it presupposes that we don't have a complete picture of god. We do. We have the bible, which purports to be the word of god, god's divine revelation of himself. It is, therefore, as complete a picture of god as god chose to give us. As such, it is completely reasonable to pass judgement on god based on the bible. And the bible, along with our present reality, demonstrates that god is neither willing nor able to prevent evil. Why, then, should we call him god?
  30. 1 point
    Here is the problem with Christian "reasoning." That statement is taken by a Christian on blind faith and therefore by definition there is no evidence that it is true. One can only, for his own reasons, choose to believe the unsupported statement. One must choose to believe the Bible, or at least parts of it. One cannot be intellectually persuaded to belief; it is an emotional proposition, not intellectual. But considering that statement alone, kind of a lame excuse, isn't it? It tells us that when reality doesn't match up with Scripture it's only because we have been prevented from knowing enough about how things work. Not a valid defense.
  31. 1 point
    Hi Kdeaustin, thanks for coming back! My own take on evil (generally humans harming other humans on purpose) is sometimes based on religion, as seen throughout the Bible and then in the awful medieval times when the religious inquisitions were happening, and even today from various religions. Sometimes it is based on people disliking things that aren't like themselves. Skin color, political beliefs, the other side of a border, all of which are choices people make to hate. Being in a group that hates others lends a feeling of being special, kind of like in grade school when kids would say "YOU can't be in our special club. Nyah nyah!" And some people really do enjoy hurting others. I was bullied in school, and was an easy target. I used to wonder why they did this since I hadn't done anything to them. Then I figured out that it was a game they couldn't lose, and that was very important to them (also seen in their devotion to sports and having the "best" team). Nature is full of animals that eat other animals, often while those animals are still alive. Killing is sometimes done to keep the prey from escaping, but not always. In those cases, it isn't about hatred, just about eating. When I was in church, believers had all kinds of stories about what witches were doing, and would do long seminars about the devil and such. Having left the church and actually talking with several witches and other pagans, they have no such "devil" in their beliefs, and are far more interested in the cycles of nature than in cursing anyone. In other words, the Christians were making it up because it seemed to validate their beliefs. And the "spooky" factor makes it all seem so powerful, and that sells really well, and makes those doing to talking seem important and powerful. I used to go with a group of men around 4am to walk around our city and anoint things with olive oil and pray to bind demons and loose the power of God. Now I see that as a complete waste of time, since there are no demons and no god. The bible is myth and non-historical stories, so none of the ooga-booga in it is any more real than the promises and blessings that fall flat when you need them to work. Other cults like 7th Day Adventists keep doing seminars where they are certain that the government will force people to worship God on Sunday (which they consider the mark of the beast). It's all ridiculous. There are no giants in Antarctica, or we'd see it being broadcast by scientists and anthropologists. There is no threat of marshal law currently, just an impeachment of the most bizarre president we've had. No guillotines, just hacked voting machines. Yes, the Big Bang is at least supported by investigative science which is always refining and improving on our knowledge base. Substituting a god might feel good, but since all the evidence for a god has fallen flat (constantly broken promises, actual history that contradicts the myths of the Bible, no record of Jesus at all outside of his cult's writings, etc) there is no reason to ascribe reality to such a being (be it the Bible god, or any of the Norse, Hindu, Egyptian, Mayan, or other gods). The Bible god just happens to be popular in our culture. Not so much in other countries. So, I hope you can find help with your anxiety. There are some supplements that help, some legal, some not. I fight it myself, and need to get regular good sleep, and still have to use supplements that modify my emotions, because reasoning doesn't seem to touch it. It is often a chemical tweak that the brain needs just to feel normal.
  32. 1 point
    Should we worship a beast because the alternative is nothing?
  33. 1 point
    What I have found in church is there are probably less than 10% of the population that actually show up for the work aspect. Likely the same with finding this young lady. The FB thing is probably self promotion.....or at least an "I'm thinking about you, but don't care enough to mobilize". Isn't this reinforced in the Bible? Wide is the path, narrow is the gate? Your bad efforts are like filthy rags? Isn't this accurate? Is that not exactly what you are describing? But on another note, as feigned as the church might be, the encouragement of others meeting together TO potentially mobilize and sometimes act ain't a bad thing. What are our alternatives in your opinion?
  34. 1 point
    Thanks for trying to reason through the issue. But... You're talking about a master plan and a purpose, which you are using to try and excuse bad things happening to people. It's all just part of the plan. Sex slavery, then, has to be part of the plan if nothing can take place outside of the plan. Remember, according to the mythology god is alleged to know the past, present and future. That means knowing in advance (1) lucifer's rebellion, (2) 1/3 of the angles in heaven cast out of heaven, (3) the fall of man here on earth, (4) and a plan of salvation and all that entails (including thousands of years and countless generations during the process). The issue of children being raped and sold into sexual slavery is a part of this pre-known master plan. The greeks had this hammered out thousands of years ago, pre-christianity. And yet christians still wonder around dumbfounded at trying to answer the question. He must be able if he's all powerful (if god exists as described in these myths, in other words). That narrows it down to able but not willing, according this "master plan." What you christian believer visitors need to understand is that most us have thought this all the way through. Many times over in most cases. We've gone back and forth with the question of whether or not we would even want to worship a god like this, permitting that a god like this even exists in the first place. My answer is a firm no, I would not worship some celestial ego, jealous god as described in the bible, who orders wholesale genocide, condones and orders the rape and slavery of young women, who is also able but unwilling to stop all of the bullshit going on in the world. And what does that say about people who do want to worship such a thing? I think when the context is laid and the spot light hits you on center stage it's rather unflattering. What kind of person are you anyways to subscribe to and condone such behavior? It doesn't make you good. If anything it makes you bad simply by association. You stand here condoning horrible traits and behaviors being past along as if they are the only truth and good thing in the world. Which is evident and demonstrable nonsense. The claims of christianity are evident and demonstrable nonsense! Now of course you may not be a bad guy. My guess is that you aren't. You probably actually believe what they've been feeding you and you simply haven't thought this thing all the way through like myself and many members here have done. You're a victim of a corrupt system, in short. I don't hold that against you personally. But I do hold that against the system itself which has been informing you and others like you. I have a big problem with the system itself. I'm still attempting to REASON with you. Don't dodge the hard questions. Try answering them honestly while addressing the points.
  35. 1 point
    Hello again Disillusioned and Joshpantera. Just to recap... we're about to dip very lightly into the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory to see exactly where they exclude the possibility of their theory applying in a universe with a positive cosmological constant. I promise (hand on heart) that this will be the only time in this thread that we touch upon the actual equations. After that the rest of our journey will be in more-or-less plain English, with various technical terms and concepts explained with diagrams and graphs. Oh... and let's not forget that I also offered the possibility of us entertaining some relevant side-questions. 1. What is the Cosmological Constant? 2. How is it measured? 3. Why did Hawking and Penrose make these four assumptions in the first place? Thank you. Walter.
  36. 1 point
    Christian theology and beliefs are as far from natural as is possible. They are of human invention and poorly executed at that. Your "argument" here is that given a few thousand more years the theology will probably work out.
  37. 1 point
    Every degree you earn should grant you a greater say? This is only fair in a society where education is free of cost. Determining whose voice carries more weight by education level makes no sense when you apply it to a system in which there are structural disadvantages. If you want an educated population your best bet is to provide them with the opportunity to be educated free of cost. Not everyone wants to spend the greater part of their life paying off ridiculous amounts of student loan. But that's what happens when educational systems operate in a for profit capitalist system.
  38. 1 point
    Good point. I think it is possible to reason with a devout person of any persuasion. (Be that in politics, social, justice, worldview etc) The person who it is not possible to reason with is a person who is not open to having their minds changed and will not... 'reason' with you. People such as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, Sye Ten Bruggencate etc spring to mind. To reason must mean you are willing to admit you are wrong. However, for many Christians the very notion of doubt and admitting you might be wrong automatically puts you in the 'not true Christian' camp. If you have the slightest doubt (As I was taught) you will not go to heaven. (Incidentally a very troubling and mentally abusive situation for a kid to be in that tended to doubt and question things)
  39. 1 point
    It seems to me that most christians learn to be christians by imitating those who are, presumably, imitating christ: parents, pastors, Sunday school teachers, youth leaders, etc. Doesn't need to be as difficult as what Barbara was making it.
  40. 1 point
    B. What it says is not what it means, though! ... Why doesn't it just say what it means then?
  41. 1 point
    Ok then. Joshpantera and the RedneckProfessor want to see the transcript. Here it is. The Bible study begins with a prayer of dedication, lead by Rob, one of the church elders. He asked if there were anyone we knew who was in need of prayer. Then, after a few notices and announcements we checked to see if we could all make it to the next Bible study. Rob then handed over to me. I began with another prayer, asking the Holy spirit to guide me in Jesus’ name. Then I asked everyone to open their Bibles to 1 Corinthians 10, so that we could do a quick recap of the last meeting. We looked at verses 23 to 33 for about ten minutes and I asked if anyone had any questions. There weren’t any. I then asked everyone to read the whole of chapter 11, verse by verse, each person following the next. I lead off with verse 1. When we reached the end of 11, I asked if anyone had received a blessing or word from the Holy Spirit while God’s Word was being read out. If that had been the case, I would have yielded to Rob, because he had authority over me in spiritual matters like this. Nobody had, so I proceeded to lead the study, focusing on verse 1. After a few minutes a lady called Barbara spoke up, querying what I was saying about the verse. I’ll begin the transcript from this point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. I believe that 1 Cor 11: 1 is telling us to imitate Christ. Me. Yes, that’s right. I agree. All Christians should imitate Christ. That’s the message for us, here, today. And it was also the message for all Christians, down through the ages. But that’s not what Paul was saying to the Corinthians. B. Yes, it is. If all Christians should imitate Christ, then the Corinthians should do the same and imitate him. Me. Yes. The Corinthians should do that. But that’s not what Paul says in his letter, is it? B. Yes, it does. Paul is telling the Corinthians to imitate Christ. ‘Imitate me as I imitate Christ.’ Me. Who is Paul telling them to imitate, Barbara? B. Jesus Christ. Me. Please read the verse again. It says, ‘Imitate me as I imitate Christ.’ Paul’s asking them to imitate him, as he imitated Christ. Isn’t that what it says? B. But that’s not what Paul’s telling them to do. He’s telling them to imitate Christ. That’s his message. Me. Barbara, please. Just look at what the text says before drawing a conclusion about the message. Who is Paul telling the Corinthians to imitate, himself or Christ? B. Christ, of course. Me. No. I’m sorry, that’s not what it says. Could you please read it out to us? B. ‘Imitate me as I imitate Christ.’ Me. So, who is Paul telling the Corinthians to imitate? Himself or Christ? B. Christ. That’s what Paul means. He wouldn’t have meant for them to imitate him, because he wanted them to imitate Christ, not him. Me. Barbara, please think about this for a minute. Had any of the Corinthians ever met Christ in person? B. Why yes, of course. They were born-again Christians, just like us. Saved by the blood of the lamb. We’ve all met Christ and know him personally. He’s our saviour and lord. The Corinthians were just the same. They knew and met Christ. Me. Ah. I can see why you’re confused and it’s my fault. B. I’m not confused! You’re the one who’s not really understanding the meaning of this verse. Me. Barbara, please let me explain. When I asked you if the Corinthians had met Christ, I should have added, ‘met him in the flesh’. That is, ‘met him when he lived in the Holy land.’ It’s my fault for not asking the question properly. Of course, none of the Corinthians had been in Israel to actually meet Jesus when he was alive. When he was preaching or when he ministered to the sick and the needy. The Corinthians came to know about Jesus Christ through the missionary work of Paul. They had never met Christ in person. So, when he writes to them, telling them to imitate him as he imitates Christ, he’s telling them to copy him as he copies Jesus. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus. That was his meeting with Christ, in the flesh. Ok, with the resurrected Christ. So, Christ was in his new body, his resurrected flesh – but Paul counts that as meeting Jesus in the flesh. Which is something none of the Corinthians ever did. They only knew Jesus spiritually, through the workings of the Holy Spirit. Which is a quite different thing. Do you see what the verse means, now? B. Yes, Walter. It means that the Corinthians should imitate Christ. Which is what I said before. Me. Umm… sorry. I meant can you see what the verse means, now that I’ve explained what Paul wrote about the Corinthians imitating him - who they had seen in the flesh - so that they could imitate Christ - who they hadn’t seen in the flesh? B. Yes. I can see what you mean, all right. The Corinthians should imitate Christ. That’s what Paul wanted them to do. Me. But who had they seen in the flesh, Barbara? Jesus or Paul? B. Paul. Me. So who is Paul asking them to imitate? B. Jesus Christ, the son of God. Me. That’s his aim, yes. To get them to imitate Christ. But how is he asking them to do that? Not by copying or imitating Christ, because none of them had ever met Christ in the flesh. But to imitate him, right? To imitate Paul. Because they had seen him in the flesh. Do you see that? B. But Paul wouldn’t have wanted to them to imitate him! He wanted them to imitate Christ! That’s who he saying they should imitate! It’s there. In the text. Me. That’s the meaning of the text. No doubt about it. But that’s not what the text actually says, is it? ‘Imitate ME as I imitate Christ.’ ME. PAUL. Not Jesus. Can’t you see that, Barbara? B. What it says is not what it means, though! Paul doesn’t mean that they should imitate him! They should imitate Christ! Paul was just a man. He wasn’t God. What you’re suggesting is that Paul wanted the Corinthians to see him as God. As Christ. That’s not what he wanted at all! You shouldn’t read things into the text that aren’t there, Walter! Me. Barbara. That’s not what I’m doing. Please. Just think for a minute. You’ve known me for fifteen years in this church and when have I ever suggested anything like this. I’ve always been very careful about how I divide God’s Word. If I was ever in doubt, I’d seek out Rob or Jeff or one of the other elders. Or Mike himself. (The pastor) B. But that’s what you’re doing now! You’re implying that Paul wanted the Corinthians to treat him like God! Me. No. I’m not. B. Yes! Yes, you are! (Rob intervenes, using his authority as an elder to stop the quarrel. He calls for a time of prayer and peace and then asks Barbara and I to put the dispute behind us. To forgive each other and be reconciled in our love for Jesus Christ. The meeting breaks up shortly afterwards.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if it's impossible for two devout Christians to reason with each other over the meaning of just one verse in the Bible, what hope is there that skeptics and non-believers could do any better? None, I'd say. Thank you. Walter.
  42. 1 point
    I believe it can be done. But that you'll only get somewhere with a Christian who has critical thinking skills and is ready to accept that there could be another reality outside of theirs. If they aren't, it's pointless.
  43. 1 point
    LuthAMF 2.0, imo.
  44. 1 point
    Apart from the fact that your post is barely coherent - the reason you might be facing some hostility is one your claim is total bullshit, and two we get that bullshit thrown at as all the time. So put yourself in my shoes getting bullshit thrown at you all the time - the next time someone throws some at you you probably aren't gonna thank them are you? Your particular style of bullshit comes from the likes of these folk: https://www.gotquestions.org/ex-Christian.html who get their bullshit from from the NT. The article asks "Why do some people claim to be former Christians?"... well you dimwits, because we were! The fact that you try and define that out of reality doesn't make it true. I was also a former creationist, a former homophobe, a former whateverthefuck. And you can put Ex in front of these words to indicate the past tense of the position you once held. The article linked ends with this "Any person who claimed to be a Christian, but later rejects the Christian faith, was never truly a Christian." Congratulations - Christians committing absurd logical fallacies since AD0. For the ignorant among you the logical fallacy displayed is a no true scotsman... but you should know that because TRP pointed it out earlier. It occurs to me that this sounds ranty... but it also occurs to me that I'm in rants and replies Oh what the hell I'll have a crack at answering this or else I'll lay awake drafting up an answer: No, your belief has no bearing on the truth - hence me pointing out your fallacy of saying we weren't really Christians. Belief is merely a mind state that indicates whether or not you agree with a proposition. The question before us is: are former Christians former Christians? Your answer, based on fallacious reasoning, is no, we were never really Christians. However a Christian is one who professes the tenants of Christianity, and since all ex-Christians here by definition once professed Christianity then we are all former, or ex-Christians. The fact that you want to point to your holy book and highlight it's propensity to commit fallacies has no bearing on the truth.
  45. 1 point
    Maybe you could answer the 'good questions' for someone else that might be reading who isn't bitter like you think I am for some reason. Maybe I'm not angry but just older and a bit wiser about allowing myself to believe biblical nonsense. Who am I bashing, you? Was I hurt? Am I fuming? I think you have me confused with someone else; maybe some stereotype you have in your mind about what an ex-Christian is. Why do I have to go "where" to torment and troll others? Here you mean? Trolling you? Who started this thread? It was you and you were denying the idea of what we are. Ex-Christians. But no, I'm trolling you. Sweet. And illogical. This is an ex-Christian forum where we talk about the fiction of Christianity and how it messed up our lives and continues to mess up other people's lives, like our relatives and friends, marriages, etc. Cant have what both ways? Why is it important that I stop talking about my negative experience with Christianity? I'm not visiting other pro-Christian forums (at the moment) and posting anti-Christian messages on them. I'm posting here. I'll post anything on here that Dave lets me and seems relevant to ex-Christianity. Ex-Christian.net: A place where people freely talk smack about Christianity and Jesus Christ. That must be hard to stomach for you.
  46. 1 point
    Hi kdeaustin, Thank you so much for sharing your story with us and... welcome! I can definitely relate to so much of what you wrote. I believed with all my heart for a solid 14 years and then, like you, I experienced some life circumstances that caused me to stop giving Christianity the benefit of the doubt. Once I started looking at the Bible with fresh eyes everything began to unravel quickly. Those Old Testament stories deeply bothered me as well. I remember reading numbers 31 where the Israelite soldiers were told to kill everyone except for the young women to keep for themselves ( obviously to rape), and I remember just trembling with my heart pounding. I just knew the Bible couldn't be true anymore and I was so angry about it and so upset and so confused and so scared. It's been about 6 years now and I can honestly say I'm the happiest I've ever been in my life. I no longer have to try to make my conflicted illogical worldview somehow fit the reality I'm experiencing. I've learned so much about myself and about others in the last 6 years. I feel truly free. Although I believe many things differently, at the core, my values are still the same - but now those values are not constrained by anything external and I'm free to truly live by them. You may have some really dark and scary months ahead. Please hang in there. I promise there is another side that you'll come out that will be really really good. You will find true peace and joy. Your life at that point might look nothing like you ever thought it would but you won't mind in the least. A book that I really loved during that season of my life was "Why I believed: reflections of a former missionary" by Ken Daniels. I also found this site (ex_C) to be a lifesaver - something I could hold on to when I felt very alone. A sad reality is that most people in your life will not be able to understand what you are going through. The Believers in your life will have absolutely no clue. If you're lucky someone will see the light and join you. But you really can't count on that. In order to preserve their own faith ( which will feel necessary to them for their own Survival) their only option will be to figure out a reason why you stopped believing that fits within their worldview. So it's either because you are never truly a Christian or because you really want to go and sin or because you're really proud etc etc. There is no room for someone who looked with sincerity and concluded that Christianity is wrong about truth. I wasted a lot of breath trying to convince people and get them to understand that I was a good and sincere man trying to live the best life I could and just choosing to be intellectually honest. But they won't see that. You have to be strong in Who You Are even if no one around you truly understands you. That in my experience was the biggest hurdle. Once you can clear that, things get a lot better.
  47. 1 point
    When online apologist's get going they usually tend to put on an act until that act finally breaks down and then they're reduced to cornered animals - lashing out, cursing at times, throwing ad homs, and showing their true colors to everyone. Not the happy go lucky kind and loving christian lot that they usually pretend to be. It's no different in real time when addressing the same issues with friends or relatives. They are people belonging to a cultic religion of ego centric based self importance. It's snide and nasty, in the name of peace of love. Probably most of us were among the same general incredulous lot, who took at face value claims that we were among the elect in this world and superior to everyone one else in one way or another. That's christianity. You are right, everyone else wrong whether theist or atheist. If they're not part of your in group, they're out. It's a horrible mind fuck when put in context. And it sets people up to lash out like cornered animals when facing the possibility of being dead wrong! Ego's become rabid. Take a look at many of our recent christian guests and members. Some of them go beyond rabid to full on bat shit crazy gibberish speak. It can be quite odd to witness. Some of us interact with them anyways, knowing how it will unfold. And simply use their predicable behaviors to suite our own purposes - whatever those purposes may be. Online, those purposes are usually to bring out their true colors and let the rabid responses fly on purpose so that witnessing readers can see what's really going on. In real time, it may do some good to have them lash out so they can feel the embarrassment of having lost their cool, fake persona. And let them dwell on it for a while.....
  48. 1 point
    Christians do not use reason, so a discussion based on reason and logic is impossible. Their world view comes from within the Bible and they cannot see anything outside of that, so rational discussion is something their minds cannot do. They defend themselves by ignoring fact, denying reality, and using logical fallacies, all of which seems normal to them because they can't think beyond that. When backed into a corner, they'll just say, "Well I believe it so that settles it." End of discussion.
  49. 1 point
    Has a Buckeye fan ever successfully reasoned with a Wolverine fan? "Devout" christians are not seeking the truth; they are defending orthodoxy against heresy. I do not see any point in arguing with someone like that. When a good discussion here turns into endless point-counterpoint with one of the sword-wielding christian apologists, I tune it out.
  50. 1 point


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.