Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bornagainathiest last won the day on February 23 2017

bornagainathiest had the most liked content!

About bornagainathiest

  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • More About Me
    Dear friends,

    Thank you for coming together today to celebrate my life and to remember me. As my friends and loved ones, you’ll have known that the stars, the planets and astronomy were a lifelong passion of mine. I deeply appreciated and loved our fascinating and wonderful universe. As my parting gift to you all, I’d like to share a thought about the cosmos. I find this thought to be exquisitely beautiful and I hope you will too.

    This thought doesn’t concern my consciousness. That brief spark of self-awareness has gone out, never to return. Instead, this thought concerns the ultimate fate of my body. Or more specifically, the atoms that my body is composed of. In this universe all patterns of matter and energy must change over time and my pattern is no different, no exception to that rule. But the changes my unliving body will undergo and the new patterns it may be recycled into are a source of wonder and fascination to me.

    My atoms will go into the soil of this land. But even when the human race is long dead or departed from this planet, the story will not be over. In the far distant future our Sun will grow and change into a red giant star. Most likely, the Earth will be swallowed up in the Sun’s bloated, outer atmosphere, dissolving and vaporizing in the heat.

    The atoms that made up my body will become part of this boiling, superheated mix of gases. In a kind of last gasp, the Sun will shed its atmosphere, leaving behind just it’s tiny, blazingly hot core - changing from a red giant into a white dwarf star. It’s possible that my atoms will be absorbed into the Sun and remain there. But if that doesn’t happen, then they will be blown off into interstellar space, along with the rest of the Sun’s gaseous atmosphere.

    These gases will drift for billions of years through the Milky Way galaxy until they gather into new clouds of star-forming material. Just as our Sun is a second or third generation star, formed from one of these clouds long ago, so new generations of stars will be formed from our dying Sun’s expelled gases. Just as the Earth formed in orbit around the Sun, so new planets will form around these new suns and my atoms may well be incorporated into these new worlds.

    If the conditions are right, life may arise there and perhaps evolve to become self-aware, just as it did here. I consider this an amazing and exhilarating thought. That the materials of my body have the long-term potential to become part of a new pattern of life and consciousness. So, I do not fear my death in any way. Instead, I welcome it and accept it as part of the natural order of things.

    Therefore, please do not weep for me. I no longer exist. If you do cry, I hope it’s because you miss me. J.R.R. Tolkien described this sadness of loss and parting very well at the end of his Lord of the Rings trilogy. The hobbits Pippin, Merry and Sam wept because their good friend and companion Gandalf was leaving them forever. However, their tears were not for him, but for themselves. They cried tears of loss because they were losing him, not because he was lost. Here are his last words to them.

    “Well, here at last, dear friends, on the shores of the Sea comes the end of our fellowship in Middle-earth. Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil.”

    And now my friends, my last word to you is a fond… farewell.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,821 profile views

bornagainathiest's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. How about hypocrisy? That is, Christians saying one thing, but doing another. Claiming to hold to a certain standard, but living by another. Such as Christians saying that no evidence would shake their faith, but living their lives by evidence. Every day heeding the evidence of their eyes and ears, but then rejecting any evidence that would falsify their faith. This hypocritical double standard is quite objectionable.
  2. How the discovery of Jesus' bones in his tomb? You wouldn't need to die and Christianity would be as dead as Christ. That convince you? Oops! Just noticed that it wouldn't. It looks like even though you live your life by evidence, you quietly drop that rule when it comes to your faith. Got it.
  3. Exactly. If you see imperfectly NOW, then according to Paul you do not have perfect knowledge and perfect understanding - which are the signs of the post-Apostolic Age. Therefore, we still must be in the Apostolic Age. Which you say finished two thousand years ago, when John died. So now, to keep to your word, you must reject Jesus and your Christian faith. . . . Bumped for Ironhorse's attention! Re-bumped for Ironhorse's attention!
  4. Hello PennySerenade. I'm not annoyed by this but I do think it's a great shame when Christians fail to keep their word. A Christian member of this forum called Ironhorse is currently trying to avoid keeping his word. This thread explains it. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77981-please-remind-ironhorse-to-keep-his-word/?tab=comments#comment-1161095 Thanks, BAA.
  5. Hello. Recently the Christian Ironhorse wrote this... If the scriptures taught that the Gift of Healing (as practiced by Jesus and the Apostles) were for all believers throughout history, I would have to reject the Christian faith. Because I do not see it happening today. I have family and friends who genuinely sought for and prayed for healing. They all died. I would be bitter and angry at God, if I had placed all my faith and trust in Him for a miracles and the miracles never happened. ...in this thread. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/77377-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/?page=2 He claimed that the Apostolic Age, where God's gifts of the spirit were given to the apostles and the early church, came to an end two thousand years ago, with the death of the apostle John. I have shown him from scripture (1 Corinthians 13) that the apostle Paul declares that the Apostolic Age will come to an end when believers have perfect knowledge and understanding of all things. I asked Ironhorse if he had perfect knowledge and understanding of all things. Here is his reply and my response. Posted Saturday at 05:39 PM Exactly. If you see imperfectly NOW, then according to Paul you do not have perfect knowledge and perfect understanding - which are the signs of the post-Apostolic Age. Therefore, we still must be in the Apostolic Age. Which you say finished two thousand years ago, when John died. So now, to keep to your word, you must reject Jesus and your Christian faith. . . . As you can see, by using the logic of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, I have shown Ironhorse that he is wrong about the Apostolic Age ending with the death of John. Since no Christian has perfect knowledge and understanding, we must still be in the Apostolic age. Therefore God must still be distributing the gifts of the spirit (including healing) as he sees fit. . . . So the scriptures DO teach that gift of healing (as practiced by Jesus and the apostles) is given to Christian believers today, just as they were in New Testament times. Since the scriptures DO teach this, Ironhorse should now keep his word. He said that he would reject the Christian faith if the scriptures taught this. Since they DO, it now falls to him to keep his word and reject Jesus Christ. . . . I've recently reminded Ironhorse that he should keep his word, but he's declined to answer me and has avoided this issue at every turn. I therefore call upon my fellow members to keep him honest and to remind him whenever possible that he should keep his word. If he replies to one of your posts, please when you respond to him, remind him of what he said he do and encourage him to keep his word. If you respond to something he posts, please also add a reminder of what he said he'd do and encourage him to keep his word. Thanks for your help in this. BAA.
  6. If your dad died two days ago End, then what the hell are you doing here, in the Den? This is not a peaceful place for Christians. Please, stop trying to work out your anger issues here and go grieve properly.
  7. Indeed, sdelsoray. This Monday he replied to LogicalFallacy, saying that I'd be the first one to ask about proof. But about a month ago, he assured me in another thread that he knew and understood that I don't ask for proofs, except in math and logic. Posted October 27 Aware of your last three posts BAA. Thanks, these are just observations. . . . You're aware of my last three posts... but you're unaware that only math uses proofs. These are just your observations... but you've never observed any posts where we've explained to you that only math uses proofs. Really? I realize the math statement. I realize certainty vs. proof. Yes, I have observed your posts. But there are more times than I can count that you say, lay out your evidence. Truthfully, I was unaware of what anecdotal evidence was. But yes, because we don't have high certainty in all areas that would transfer anecdotal observations to high certainty, then we are left with math perhaps or accepting that anecdotal observations are either very typical or atypical. And yes, this doesn't mean they are true, but, when you put these observation together with science, I think it points to something there. Conversely, I think it can also help us question the paths science is taking. This reminds me our science fair discussion and the conversation asking about what can be tested. My mind takes anecdotal observations and says "let's test that" vs. a more strict adherence. And this is more how my mind works I think, than anything else. Lol, only took how many years to figure this out...10?
  8. Posted just now Yet another "Hey look over there". You spend much time promoting trust in others, and you do so quite sanctimoniously. I suggest you spend time determining why others do not trust you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sdelsolray, Notice how today End says that trust isn't always based on evidence. But nine days ago, in response to you, he wrote this... No. I can look at behaviors, i.e. stealing, murder, etc. and measure consequences. What I think we are witnessing, because of our relatively recent and improved ability to store and recall history as data, we are more able to discern how our behaviors/actions were affecting society.....the consequences of certain agendas proving whether they did or didn't hold water over time. I think we may then assess the agenda or moral as true or untrue by the tendency of society to move away from, but then back to, that behavior....supporting life. Yep. Nine days ago he wanted to look at behaviors (i.e., evidence) and measure the consequences accordingly. But today he's calling into doubt what he said he'd do nine days ago. So he seems to be flip-flopping between trusting and not trusting evidence.
  9. May I raise a point of order to a point of order to another point of order. What you say is valid, LF. Such a contradictory case is found within scripture. But it sits within the overall scriptural context I've described earlier. The context being that every human except Adam and Eve was cursed by God before they were born. So, everyone is punished for the sins of just two people. Punished with disease, deformity, decrepitude and death. Everyone. Since God already unjustly punishes every generation for the sins of two people, it's really no surprise that he'll happily punish four generations of the unborn for the sins of their ancestors. Now, when it comes to interpreting scripture and trying to understand how God decides to mete out punishment for sin, I would submit the following. Method 1. God punishes everyone for Adam and Eve's sin. Method 2. God punishes four generations for the sins of the father. Since # 2 is clearly contradicted elsewhere in scripture but # 1 is not, we are safer theological and doctrinal ground by going with and working with # 1. It's impossible to resolve the contradiction associated with # 2. Therefore, we should go with # 1. Thanks, BAA.
  10. No. Even though Lyra's used the word, 'let' in her question, that's misleading. God doesn't passively let these things happen. Nor does he need to seek permission of anyone to let them happen, either. He is the initiator of them. He's eternal and unchanging. He planned to do them before he created time and space. Before Genesis 1 : 1. These things are His will. As that Romans quote tells us. Romans 8:19-23 New International Version (NIV) 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. Edit: End, please note that I've changed my earlier post to read this. "She didn't ask about salvation, but about God's motivation for ordaining some people to be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery."
  11. And how does this address Lyra's question in any way, End? She didn't ask about salvation, but about God's motivation for ordaining some people to be born into existences that are truly nothing but misery.
  12. End3, 1. Why would a perfect, just, all-good God allow a person to be born in a North Korea prison camp, live their whole life there and die there, without knowing anything other than depravity and torture at the Auschwitz level, because their grandparents rebelled against the government? 2. Even if we were to accept that the horribly deformed baby posted by BornAgainAtheist was the result of sin (assuming perhaps that the parents' "sin" led to it), why would an all-just and all-good perfect God make the innocent baby forced to live the life of nothing but suffering, instead of punishing the parent who sinned? Children are not just objects/extensions of their parents; they are sentient people of their own, so why would punishing a baby for the parents' sin be the action of a god worthy of worship? People here have circled around the 10 commandments and petty definitions, but little has been said about these core issues. Thanks, Lyra ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ End, Once again Lyra is asking about God, not about the parents or children. So any comments from you about generational sin and what humans do or don't do is off-topic. Lyra is asking about God, not people.
  13. All well and good, End. But Lyra didn't ask about parents adversely affecting the lives of their children by mismanagement. She asked about why God would 'sentence' people to a horrible life. She talked about God making things harder for them, not their parents or ancestors making things harder for them. This was her OP. Posted November 18 In Christianity, when people have terrible traumas/tragedies in life, it's generally compared to Job and accompanied by statements like "God is making things harder for you now but they will be so much better later." Examples cited are often things like...you lose your job but it leads to a better one, or there's a family tragedy but then it brings the whole extended family together, or you come from an abusive childhood but then are inspired to a career of helping others, and so on. But in those examples, there's typically the assumption that the people involved are able to someday have mostly good lives despite the pain: living in a wealthy free country, having decent health (or a handicap they can still live happy lives with), having opportunity to move forward, etc. But what about the people who are truly born into terrible, hellish lives? For instance: people in North Korea who spend their entire lives in Auschwitz-like prison camps because their grandparent rebelled against the government. Or the victims of human trafficking all over the world. Or the Untouchable castes in India where someone is socially ostracized and forced to work jobs like cleaning inside the sewers, with little to no hope of escaping that fate. Or the starving kids in 3rd-world countries with horrible deformities and no resources to cure them, etc. We always hear of inspirational stories of people who came from awful backgrounds of hardship, and it's wonderful that those people could overcome it. But many can't. And for the ones that will never have a chance or who will never find comfort or happiness, why would an "all good God" sentence some people to being born into lives that are worse than having never been born? Her focus was on God, not any generation of humans. So when you replied to her saying... 'It's sin Lyra...it's self imposed.' ...you weren't answering her question about God. Instead you were referring to human generational sin. But Lyra's question was about what God does, not what any human does. In this whole thread you've focused on the wrong thing and failed to address Lyra's topic or question. She wants Christian members of Ex-C like yourself to comment about God - not to comment about any generation of humans. See where you've diverged from Lyra's topic and question?
  14. A point of order, Florduh. Lyra's OP and question was about the Christian god. According to the Bible that God doesn't do what End3 claims he does. End's god inflicts the sins of the parents onto the child. But the god of the Bible doesn't do that. So, strictly speaking, he hasn't been answering Lyra's question. In this thread there are two themes running in parallel. Lyra's questions about the God of the Bible and End's different god. Whenever the topic veers on to generational sin, then the God of the bible and the bible itself is not being discussed. So, if you're tackling End about generational sin, then you and he aren't keeping to Lyra's question or topic. See it now?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.