Phrases That Breed Ex-christians

[Kevin H]

Hans, I'd be glad to try and answer what you think I haven't. I would suggest you just deal with anything you find of substance from me and not try to guess my motivations. If you find nothing of substance from me, why waste your time?

Why do YOU guess OUT motivations? You come here over and over again and make assumptions about what and how made us who we are, and we react and get upset, and now you're upset because I guess your motivations? That's exactly what I'm talking about! You treat us the way you DON'T want to be treated yourself. So you break the Law Jesus gave you "do to others that you want them to do to you."

 

Now I did to you what you do to me, and you don't like it. Can you understand that we don't like it either?

 

 

So all that was just to teach me a lesson? Okay. Thanks. Now, I've only tried to discuss what I see as a problem for the church in America and why people become disillusioned emotionally or intellectually with Christianity. That was the purpose of my initial article and the little laundry list of phrases that I think do damage.

 

Is there anything I haven't answered? I'll try to do it now.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Can you list for us reasons you don't worship nor follow Dionysus, Osiris or Zeus? Why do you logically reject these gods?

 

 

These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

 

 

Uh, hate to burst you bubble, but Yahwey started out the same way according to antropologists and historians.... He was just another limited and localized god in Palistine who became prominate through luck of the draw.

 

But for the sake of argument, what about Allah...Islam claims He is the all powerful creator of the universe the same as in christianity.

[Minstrel]

Is there anything I haven't answered? I'll try to do it now.

Yeah. You could answer some of the questions I posed, without saying "I answered that in another thread, go read it..." I read the thread. There's no such answer (or attempt) given. If you need help, I can repost the questions posed in this thread.

[Kevin H]

 

KH> Also, what exactly about faith in Christ is illogical or unreasonable?

 

 

I guess if you want to believe in Christ, that's not really unreasonable or illogical. It's the requirement that everybody believe it that is.

 

KH> If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it. The Christian is not the one who says Christ is the only way. Christ said it.

 

There's a lot of examples all over this forum about the contradictions in the Bible, so I'm not gonna go into that there.

 

Jesus's basic message was "Be nice to each other and take care of one another." This is a basic doctrine found all over the world in thousands of different places, cultures, and religions that have never heard of Jesus. This is something parents start teaching babies before they even begin teaching religion. It's not that hard to figure out even if you've never heard of religion.

 

 

KH> Jesus focus was on who he was, not just what he said. And Jesus did pronounce the Golden Rule valid just like many before him. One does not need to be a Christian or a theist to recognize moral values. But one cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist.

 

We don't NEED Jesus.

 

KH> Depends on what your needs are.

 

 

And no "real" god "needs" anything from us.

 

KH> Correct. But God can certainly desire us from the standpoint of his creative freedom, love, and perfection.

 

 

 

 

Can you list for us reasons you don't worship nor follow Dionysus, Osiris or Zeus? Why do you logically reject these gods?

 

 

 

KH>These gods are easily traced to mythology with no historical evidence for their existence as actual beings.

 

Since they are limited, localized, and fallible (were they to exist) they would be subject to creation and therefore cannot account for creation. Therefore, any worldview that considers them anything other than myth fails to correspond to reality.

 

There is nothing in the mythology of these gods that serves as a defeater for Christian Theism.

 

 

Uh, hate to burst you bubble, but Yahwey started out the same way according to antropologists and historians.... He was just another limited and localized god in Palistine who became prominate through luck of the draw.

 

KH> Who are these anthropologists and historians?

 

But for the sake of argument, what about Allah...Islam claims He is the all powerful creator of the universe the same as in christianity.

 

KH> Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

[Dhampir]

If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it. The Christian is not the one who says Christ is the only way. Christ said it.

IF! You say that I...F--if, and then say it is a requirement. You are using an equation of the form If A, then B, whereas if A is true, then B is also true, but you have yet to prove (as does Christ himself ) that A is true. How can you expect that we sed it your way if you can't make us understand why it's any more logical or better than believing in Mithra?

[Fweethawt]

I hope to God that this isn't the KJPee Kevin that deconverted some time ago. Somebody tell me that it isn't.

 

Please?

[Kevin H]

...what exactly about faith in Christ is illogical or unreasonable?

K

The Holy Spirit comes(?) upon Mary, who then conceives, and bears a Savior...

The Sons of God looked upon the daughters of men, and saw that they were luscious, and sexy, and good for numbers of things...and the daughters of men bore to them giants and heroes...

...But...while their was not even a reprimand for the Holy Spirit...or the Holy Offspring...those Old Testament Sons of God were chained in the book of Jude...until the Last Day.

 

KH> As to the Virgin Birth, it is what we would expect in an event like the Incarnation. As to Genesis 6, there are several views. I hold the view that these were human "Sons of God" from a distinct line and not referred to in Jude. They also had human offspring.

 

3). The Scriptures nowhere say by "simply believing one can heal the sick".

Sorry if I'm firm. But you are the one misinformed.

Who do you think you're addressing? A bunch of idiots that "heard" about Christianity...or went to some Church Services to see if there were some pretty girls/guys there?

"...you will lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover..."

Oh...maybe you would say - "Show me where it says anything about believing!"

Or...perhaps you would say - "Were you there...? Did He say this to you? That faded away with the Apostles..." (show us where that is found).

 

 

KH> I'm not sure whom I am addressing. The longer Markan ending is a disputed text, and one should never base a doctrine on a disputed text. The longer ending was probably scribal marginal notes and could well have referred to some historical events that align well with extra-biblical accounts of persecution, etc.

 

If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it. The Christian is not the one who says Christ is the only way. Christ said it.

IF! You say that I...F--if, and then say it is a requirement. You are using an equation of the form If A, then B, whereas if A is true, then B is also true, but you have yet to prove (as does Christ himself ) that A is true. How can you expect that we sed it your way if you can't make us understand why it's any more logical or better than believing in Mithra?

 

 

KH> Correct. I was addressing the internal question first (since that is what was asked). Whether the claims of Christ are true is an external question.

 

Mithraism? Most of what we know about it comes after the Christian era but we know it was a Roman military cult concerning a god born from a rock. You do the math.

[Minstrel]

KH> I'm not sure whom I am addressing. The longer Markan ending is a disputed text, and one should never base a doctrine on a disputed text. The longer ending was probably scribal marginal notes and could well have referred to some historical events that align well with extra-biblical accounts of persecution, etc.

How much of the Bible/New Testament is not disputed text?

[KT45]

[but for the sake of argument, what about Allah...Islam claims He is the all powerful creator of the universe the same as in christianity.

 

KH> Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

Is statement #2 a Fact or a faith based opinion? Also how can christianity be considered fact if it requires "faith" a.k.a the evidence of things not seen?

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

KH> Who are these anthropologists and historians?

 

KH> Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

 

 

Do you OWN research, if you can't pick up a history book on middle eastern history...or heck even read the BIBLE you can see how Judaism started with a belief in a mountain god and then moved and the theology slowly evolved. This is why later books in the OT and the NT included things like angels, heaven, and hell, but the early OT books do not. These things were incorporated into Judaism from the Babylonian religion. At least that is the most accepted theory by biblical scholars.

 

Start by reading something by Elaine Pagels. She is one of the better known scholars for this stuff. She will set you straight on the origins of Judaism and Christianity. Otherwise, you can just read the bible itself, if you read it carefully you can see the seams where it was cobbled together and the points in which the theological perspective changes.

 

As far as your 2 points, I'll agree to 1 at least conditionally, that if you take Christianity to mean in the most literal and evangelical approach.

 

The problem is point 2, because literal evangelical christianity is so absolutely absurd that offering any substantial proof of its veracity is about as likely as the Nile river turning into blood

 

its an indefensable idea...but I'm sure you wont take my word for it, so lets get on with the logical farce of you trying to defend it.

[Kevin H]

KH> I'm not sure whom I am addressing. The longer Markan ending is a disputed text, and one should never base a doctrine on a disputed text. The longer ending was probably scribal marginal notes and could well have referred to some historical events that align well with extra-biblical accounts of persecution, etc.

How much of the Bible/New Testament is not disputed text?

 

 

KH> Due to the enormous abundance of NT mansuscripts (over 5000 Greek, 25,000 in Latin and other languages) we can put the autographa together about 99%. And any textual variants do not affect essential doctrine.

 

[but for the sake of argument, what about Allah...Islam claims He is the all powerful creator of the universe the same as in christianity.

 

KH> Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

Is statement #2 a Fact or a faith based opinion? Also how can christianity be considered fact if it requires "faith" a.k.a the evidence of things not seen?

 

KH> I would say it is fact and faith based. Facts provide support for warranted belief or faith. The New Testament does not teach fideism. Hebrews 11:1 shows faith has two elements: evidence and substance.

 

 

 

 

 

KH> Who are these anthropologists and historians?

 

KH> Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

 

 

Do you OWN research, if you can't pick up a history book on middle eastern history...or heck even read the BIBLE you can see how Judaism started with a belief in a mountain god and then moved and the theology slowly evolved. This is why later books in the OT and the NT included things like angels, heaven, and hell, but the early OT books do not. These things were incorporated into Judaism from the Babylonian religion. At least that is the most accepted theory by biblical scholars.

 

KH> I have done research and everything you just said is false. Now, you made the claim please back it up.

 

 

Start by reading something by Elaine Pagels. She is one of the better known scholars for this stuff. She will set you straight on the origins of Judaism and Christianity. Otherwise, you can just read the bible itself, if you read it carefully you can see the seams where it was cobbled together and the points in which the theological perspective changes.

 

KH> I have read Pagels and she is a radical scholar not in keeping with the main of biblical scholarship. Besides, she is only one scholar. Show me where she is in keeping with the majority of biblical scholarship please.

 

 

As far as your 2 points, I'll agree to 1 at least conditionally, that if you take Christianity to mean in the most literal and evangelical approach.

 

The problem is point 2, because literal evangelical christianity is so absolutely absurd that offering any substantial proof of its veracity is about as likely as the Nile river turning into blood

 

its an indefensable idea...but I'm sure you wont take my word for it, so lets get on with the logical farce of you trying to defend it.

 

 

KH> Why should I take your word for it? Let's start with two or three of what you consider absurdities, and what Worldview informs what is absurd and what is not?

[KT45]

When you say christianity is "fact" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean every part of the bible is historically accurate and everything, miracles and all, are all very true. Do you mean that a majority of the historic community support the belief that all of christianity is true? Or are you just saying that christianity is a fact because it "in fact" exist?

 

For example do you believe it is a fact that every animal, in pairs, entered the Ark? Even kangaroos?

 

Do you believe it is a fact that there was a garden of eden and Adam and Eve talked to a talking snake that God made crawl on it's belly and eat dirt?

 

Sounds closer to myth than fact to me. But you may present your case.

[wideawake42]

 

Islam is an attempt at monotheism but let me cut to the chase. I am willing to defend these premises;

 

1). If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

 

2). Christianity is true.

 

3). Therefore, Islam is false.

 

 

This one belongs on www.fstdt.com.

 

I dare you to defend your second proposition. I dare you.

[Dhampir]

Mithraism? Most of what we know about it comes after the Christian era but we know it was a Roman military cult concerning a god born from a rock. You do the math

Actually, what we know about Mithraism is that it predates Christianity by at least a century, and was absorbed into the roman religious landscape (I believe in that particular version Mithra was the son of either Helios or Apollo, wereas in the older version, he was the son of Ohrmazd [Ahura Mazda]). It was a popular religion in the decades prior to the rise of Christianity in the 3rd century CE. It was a mystery religion in all it's incarnations, which is why little was ever written about it; the adherents did not want their deeper secrets getting out.

 

We know that Tarsus, where Paul came from, had a significant Mithraic following, and the particulars of the story, the parallels it bears with the later emerging Christ Cult are very uncanny. Yeah, the math is kinda a little more algebraic than arithmetic.

[wideawake42]

 

Mithraism? Most of what we know about it comes after the Christian era but we know it was a Roman military cult concerning a god born from a rock. You do the math.

 

Christianity? Most of what we know about it comes from centuries after Christ's death, but we know it was a Jewish cult concerning a god born from a virgin. You do the math.

[Kevin H]

When you say christianity is "fact" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean every part of the bible is historically accurate and everything, miracles and all, are all very true. Do you mean that a majority of the historic community support the belief that all of christianity is true? Or are you just saying that christianity is a fact because it "in fact" exist?

 

 

KH> I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

 

There are many facts about Jesus that historians agree on, but come to different conclusions as to what the facts mean based on worldviews, bias, presuppositions, religious views, etc.

 

So, I say belief in Christ as savior is not necessarily based on fact, but supported by fact. This distinguishes it from competing religious options in my opinion.

 

But I say that because many come to faith and relationship with the living Christ internally, subjectively, prior to doing an exhaustive study of the objective evidence for Christ's claims.

[Kurari]

KH> If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it. The Christian is not the one who says Christ is the only way. Christ said it.

 

Considering I don't believe in Christ or the Bible, this doesn't mean anything to me. But I DO have to deal with real people getting into my face with their beliefs and I really don't appreciate it. If it's a requirement of god, then that's between me and god.

 

KH> Jesus focus was on who he was, not just what he said. And Jesus did pronounce the Golden Rule valid just like many before him. One does not need to be a Christian or a theist to recognize moral values. But one cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist." But humans aren't the only animals that have "rules" in their societies. Looking from a Naturalist point of view, it would then make sense that humans would have them as well. We've had them since cavemen times.

 

We don't NEED Jesus.

 

KH> Depends on what your needs are.

 

I meant in the sense of ExC's here. I sure don't need Jesus.

 

And no "real" god "needs" anything from us.

KH> Correct. But God can certainly desire us from the standpoint of his creative freedom, love, and perfection.

 

"Desire us?" Do you mean desire us like one person desires another, or desire in he has expectations?

[Fweethawt]

Hebrews 11:1 shows faith has two elements: evidence and substance.

Hbr 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

Moron - Etymology: irregular from Greek mOros foolish, stupid

1 a mildly mentally retarded person

2 a very stupid person

[KT45]

When you say christianity is "fact" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean every part of the bible is historically accurate and everything, miracles and all, are all very true. Do you mean that a majority of the historic community support the belief that all of christianity is true? Or are you just saying that christianity is a fact because it "in fact" exist?

 

 

KH> I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

You mean facts like real historic locations, a few events that actually happened like battles and the use of historic figures like Pontius Pilate? Practically every religion has those to support it like the muslim religion and buddhism. The radical claims that buddha made were recorded and preserved. The historical leaders he meet were real leaders, and many of the events expierenced actually happened. Does this make buddhism the true religion to follow?

[Kevin H]

KH> If Christ is who he claimed to be, then it is a requirement of God that everyone believe it. The Christian is not the one who says Christ is the only way. Christ said it.

 

Considering I don't believe in Christ or the Bible, this doesn't mean anything to me. But I DO have to deal with real people getting into my face with their beliefs and I really don't appreciate it. If it's a requirement of god, then that's between me and god.

 

KH> I agree. We humans can really get into each other's spaces and faces.

KH> Jesus focus was on who he was, not just what he said. And Jesus did pronounce the Golden Rule valid just like many before him. One does not need to be a Christian or a theist to recognize moral values. But one cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "cannot account for why they exist objectively if one is a Naturalist." But humans aren't the only animals that have "rules" in their societies. Looking from a Naturalist point of view, it would then make sense that humans would have them as well. We've had them since cavemen times.

 

KH> Not sure what you mean by "cavemen" days but it is hard to explain objective morality from a Naturalistic, Darwinian view. Observing animals is the Is/Ought Fallacy when it comes to morals. Morals don't describe what is, but what ought to be. Morals are prescriptive, not merely descriptive.

 

C.S. Lewis has a lot to say about how "herd instinct" cannot account for moral values. Once one reduces moral values to survival instinct, etc., why OUGHT I be moral? Morals tend to impose themselves on us. We are in touch with a sense of moral obligation that is above us. Morals are discovered, not determined. That means they are objective (though they may be applied subjectively).

 

We don't NEED Jesus.

 

KH> Depends on what your needs are.

 

I meant in the sense of ExC's here. I sure don't need Jesus.

 

KH> Whether you "need" something does not make it false. Pragmatism is problematic.

 

And no "real" god "needs" anything from us.

 

KH> Correct. But God can certainly desire us from the standpoint of his creative freedom, love, and perfection.

 

"Desire us?" Do you mean desire us like one person desires another, or desire in he has expectations?

 

KH> As in personally.

[Kuroikaze]

 

 

 

KH> Due to the enormous abundance of NT mansuscripts (over 5000 Greek, 25,000 in Latin and other languages) we can put the autographa together about 99%. And any textual variants do not affect essential doctrine.

 

 

I have to ask...have you actually READ said textual variants or are you just taking the word of someone else that they don't affect essential doctrine?

 

What about the error in the septuigint that led Mathiew to incorectly believe that Issiah claimed that the messaih would be born by a virgin when the hebrew only says young woman? That seems like a pretty serious difference in doctorine to me.

 

 

Do you OWN research, if you can't pick up a history book on middle eastern history...or heck even read the BIBLE you can see how Judaism started with a belief in a mountain god and then moved and the theology slowly evolved. This is why later books in the OT and the NT included things like angels, heaven, and hell, but the early OT books do not. These things were incorporated into Judaism from the Babylonian religion. At least that is the most accepted theory by biblical scholars.

 

KH> I have done research and everything you just said is false. Now, you made the claim please back it up.

 

 

I DID back it up, read the bible itself its in there, why do you think there is such a radical difference between early judaism and late judaism...if you have a better explanation for where the dotorine of hell came from lets here it. Early Judaism only mentions Sheol which is not the same thing at all. For someone who claims to have "done the research" You are fairly ignorant about the bible and early middle eastern history.

 

 

KH> I have read Pagels and she is a radical scholar not in keeping with the main of biblical scholarship. Besides, she is only one scholar. Show me where she is in keeping with the majority of biblical scholarship please.

 

Of course YOU think she is radical, your an ignorant evangelical twit. She may be radical by your standards, but her scholarship IS accepted by mainstream scholars...it just so happens that mainstream scholarship pretty much unamiously denies biblcal inerrancy....

 

I was a religion major in college and EVERY single one of my profesers felt her scholarship was valid and well thought out. Believe me I've read radical scholarship and SHE is not radical.

 

In any case its a bit disingenious to ask for scholarly work to back up my claims and then when its given just claim they are radical. You would have claimed anyone I mentioned was radical unless they aggred with YOUR point of view, so all you were doing is pretending to take me seriously.

 

KH> Why should I take your word for it? Let's start with two or three of what you consider absurdities, and what Worldview informs what is absurd and what is not?

 

Fine, lets start with the basics. To me I think the most important evangelical idea is that of Substutuionary Grace. It is nessarally predicated on the idea that the Jewish blood sacrifices were instituted to allow god to forgive sins and that Jesus came as a perfect sacrifice in the line of those sacrifices and thus did away with animal sacrfices as the perfect atonment.

 

Explain why god NEEDS and animal sacrfice to forgive sin. Explain how a substituional death and ancient blood rites are "perfect" justice.

 

 

 

*sigh* let the dance of one thousand absurdities begin. I must be a masochist because I keep having these conversations with fundies

 

Sorry if I seem rude, but I have had this exact same converastion with probably 40 or 50 christians and I have a feeling that I can predect EVERY argument you will use. You may think your original, but I've seen at least 30 evangelical christians come through her and parrot the same things your saying. Do you know how many people here converted BACK to christianity because of thier words? Exactly zero. ON the other hand I know of at least 2 or 3 christians who came here to evangelize and are now ex-christians themselves.

[KT45]

Do you know how many people here converted BACK to christianity because of thier words? Exactly zero.

I haven't been here that long but I was sure that at least a few went back to christianity. They probably would have came straight back but are christian tactics really that ineffective? I thought they would at least get the newbies

[Kuroikaze]

By the by, Elain Pagels got her PHD and Harvard and had taught religion at Princeton...... Clearly her back ground shows her to be a radical who no one takes seriously.

[Kevin H]

When you say christianity is "fact" what do you mean exactly? Do you mean every part of the bible is historically accurate and everything, miracles and all, are all very true. Do you mean that a majority of the historic community support the belief that all of christianity is true? Or are you just saying that christianity is a fact because it "in fact" exist?

 

 

KH> I say Christianity is factual because it is based on the facts of history, i.e. the New Testament is reliable, the radical claims of Christ were recorded and preserved, extra-biblical sources on Christ, etc.

You mean facts like real historic locations, a few events that actually happened like battles and the use of historic figures like Pontius Pilate? Practically every religion has those to support it like the muslim religion and buddhism. The radical claims that buddha made were recorded and preserved. The historical leaders he meet were real leaders, and many of the events expierenced actually happened. Does this make buddhism the true religion to follow?

 

 

KH> Factual locations, characters, events, etc. do not make a religion true, but can lend support to a worldview. Facts by themselves prove little. A string of facts can provide an interpretation.

 

Historical facts don't prove Christianity, but add weight to the evidence for Christianity. That is one of the reasons I say Christian faith is reasonable faith (Acts 17:17, I Peter 3:15).

[Kuroikaze]

Do you know how many people here converted BACK to christianity because of thier words? Exactly zero.

I haven't been here that long but I was sure that at least a few went back to christianity. They probably would have came straight back but are christian tactics really that ineffective? I thought they would at least get the newbies

 

 

I can't think of any, though maybe I've forgoten them...it IS posible. I've been here for over a year though, and while people may come and go, I can't think of anyone who came here as a deconvert and came back later to post that they were going back.

 

I don't know for sure though, but the mods might know

 

 

 

KH> Factual locations, characters, events, etc. do not make a religion true, but can lend support to a worldview. Facts by themselves prove little. A string of facts can provide an interpretation.

 

Historical facts don't prove Christianity, but add weight to the evidence for Christianity. That is one of the reasons I say Christian faith is reasonable faith (Acts 17:17, I Peter 3:15).

 

 

So by that logic do you also think Buddhism, Taoism and Confucinism are "reasonable?"

 

I'm not asking if you think they are true or not, we have already established that you think they are false, but do you think the beliefs are reasonable?