How Is Christianity Reasonable

[white_raven23]

4) Enough about the snake, already! Jesus died to pay the price for US, and nothing else. Do you need chapter and verse? I mean, if you set something in motion, be it life, death, sin, forgivness, redemption, etc... wouldn't you want to see it through to it's logical conclusion? Or would it just be a video game to you, where you can start over again tomorrow and none the wiser and no harm no foul? Are you sure that this is how God would think? Another answer to this question would be, have you ever paid off your own debt?

 

Nope, can't get away from the snake. The story of the snake is the reason for the story of Jesus. Kill the snake and you have no reason for Jesus' ministry. The story of the talking snake is fiction, if god is all-knowing, he knew that and would not sacrifice himself over a work of fiction. Jesus is then fiction as is any claim that he was alive or resurrected. Christianity is for losers. You can't prove man is guilty of anything, however, history shows christianity is guilty of crimes against humanity.

 

Can't get away from the talking snake at all. Got to have the talking snake. Christians want to draw attention away from things like the talking snake and the talking donkey...because shoving those under the rug makes their bullshit sound more legit. Bring up a talking animal in ANY other belief system....watch those pious christian eyebrows curl with skepticism! But theirs is real....only so long as they try the "devil in disguise" bullshit that is clearly refuted by scripture itself.

[Guest RevDDM]

"Bullshit! Of course your answers are biased! Because it's what you believe and what you believe entirely affects your answers. Your observations aren't objective in the slightest." -graphicsguy

 

Lawyers are biased. One of them is right, in any given trial. I could say that you are biased. I answer based on logic and experience, not to mention the available evidence that supports God's Word.

 

"Rev, Rev, Rev...

 

This site exists for us ex-Christians. Most of us here have thought your thoughts and believed your beliefs. It only takes some thinking and studying to see the Bible for what it is - ancient mythology, and derivative at that. BTW, which Bible do you refer to? The one with all the writings, or the one edited by Catholics, or the one edited by Protestants?

 

I for one, and I expect many others, didn't leave their faith because they wanted to commit certain sins, or a loved one died unjustly and they blamed God, or because televangelists are greedy fakes. I know I never blamed Christianity for the Inquisition or witch burnings. The Bible, all by itself, ends belief when studied and compared to observable facts, experience and reality. You, like many others, have been told that the Bible is factual and even the actual Word of the One and Only God. Holding that belief you therefore must twist reality to support your foregone conclusion, for the Word of God must be true. To say that we are the ones misinterpreting evidence would be insulting were it not so absurd.

 

If your belief is comforting to you, then enjoy it. Just don't expect rational people with open minds to join you." -florduh

 

Most of you have believed what I believe, but some have not. Many of you are led to your conclusions because of the misinterpretation of the true evidence, and because you are taught things that are simply untrue. Others are led to your conclusion, believing that you were once Christians; when, by the Bible's standards, you were not. Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called "Christians" out there (sincere or otherwise), whose misinterpretations of God's Word lead people astray. Then, when they are proven wrong, they fall back on the claim that theirs is true Christianity, when it still denies the Bible's standard of true Christianity. It is to them that I make my appeal.

 

The death of a loved one, the desire to commit certain sins, or greedy fake Christians are just some examples of what I mean. The rest of my posts state the purposes behind the examples. When improperly studied, and confused with theological and denominational doctrine, the Bible can be misconstrued as false. When truthfully examined, and taught apart from denominational theologies, it has never been proven false. By believing that the Bible means to say what other people think it means to say, rather than deducing the truth from the text itself, you are indeed misinterpreting the truth of God's word. That bias against the text itself, and it's logical conclusions, causes people to misinterpret the supporting evidence. As for absurdity, that is in the mind of the observer. To you, the Word of the Creator is absurd. To me, accepting mere scientific theory - which is theoretical on the premise that has as much chance of being right as it does of being wrong, - as unabashed truth is absurd.

 

Rational people, with open minds, share the same sentiment. Albert Einstein did. Benjamin Franklin did. To an extent, even Charles Darwin admits to it (read his work, "Life and Letters").

 

"No you didn't. I refuse to believe it because you didn't do it..."

 

"...ID is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination. That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It makes no predictions other than "goddidit" and it has no explanatory power. Therefore, it is not science. Note that Ben Stein is an actor, not a scientist. NO Jews believe in Christianity..."

 

"...See this link: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

 

If you really want to know why I don't believe that the bible is the word of a god anymore, you can read my anti-testimony here:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/brother-...y-in-two-parts/

 

Or, you can stick to your arrogant and misinformed assumptions. Your choice." -BrotherJeff

 

 

Isn't it funny that you've proven the old adage "whenever you're caught in a lie, deny, deny, deny"? I presented a case not only on the perfect truth of God's Word, but I also called on the works and quotes of one Robert Jastrow... which you have yet to dispute; successfully, or otherwise. If you missed it, the quote was, "In science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. This view has not always been held by scientists. Only as the result of the latest scientific discoveries can we conclude that the world did not begin spontaneously; it developed abruptly, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation". The quote from his book, "Until the Sun Dies", is: "The first billion years of the Earth's existence has been erased: that magical period, when life has been said to have evolved. The theory of organic evolution is held by scientists as a matter of faith, without proof". This from the founder and director of the N.A.S.A. Goddard institute for space studies, professor of Earth Science at Dartmouth University, and professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. Is he credible enough for you?

 

You are again mistaken. Intelligent Design has yet to be disproven conclusively, just like evolution has yet to be conclusively proven. Any scientist will tell you that the "evidence" for evolution can be successfully disputed, but not the evidence of Intelligent Design. Can logic be wrong? Can evidence be wrong, if properly deciphered? Can you be wrong? I know I can, but logic and evidence cannot.

 

As for the idea that no jews believe in Christianity, have you ever heard of an organization called "Jews for Jesus"? Jews, who put their faith in Jesus as the promised messiah (or, in hebrew pronounciation, "hamaschiach"). Finally, Ben Stein was smart enough to have his own trivia show, "Win Ben Stein's Money". Only two people, that I know of, have beaten him on the show. Further, the categories were based on a plethora of subjects... even science. Think about it...

 

As for your "testimony", I can understand how devastating mental illness can be. I've had many family members who were mentally ill, and my own mother had bi-polar disorder (and other illnesses). Off topic: there is a vitamin supplement on the market, by a man named Dr. Libby, which is a pill, made of B-6, B-12 and Folic Acid. It works like nitroglycerin pills. In 90 percent of all cases, people with mood disorders (like yours,) were pronounced cured, after about four weeks of the treatment (opposed to traditional medications). I also see that the Christianity you experienced was erroneous in many aspects, and in many ways erred from God's Word, but you even admit that you had felt a change in you, for the better, when you decided to follow Christ.

 

Also, thanks for the info on Pascal's Wager. I found it very informative...

 

Bless you all,

 

-D-

[Kuroikaze]

Isn't it funny that you've proven the old adage "whenever you're caught in a lie, deny, deny, deny"? I presented a case not only on the perfect truth of God's Word, but I also called on the works and quotes of one Robert Jastrow... which you have yet to dispute; successfully, or otherwise. If you missed it, the quote was, "In science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. This view has not always been held by scientists. Only as the result of the latest scientific discoveries can we conclude that the world did not begin spontaneously; it developed abruptly, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation". The quote from his book, "Until the Sun Dies", is: "The first billion years of the Earth's existence has been erased: that magical period, when life has been said to have evolved. The theory of organic evolution is held by scientists as a matter of faith, without proof". This from the founder and director of the N.A.S.A. Goddard institute for space studies, professor of Earth Science at Dartmouth University, and professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. Is he credible enough for you?

 

You present a false dichotomy, Evolution being true or false has nothing to do with god's existence, and even if evolution is false it doesn't prove there is a god...much less YOUR version of god. None of us know how the universe began. However, Science has theories, which are at least based upon more evidence than "the bible says it"

 

You are again mistaken. Intelligent Design has yet to be disproven conclusively, just like evolution has yet to be conclusively proven. Any scientist will tell you that the "evidence" for evolution can be successfully disputed, but not the evidence of Intelligent Design. Can logic be wrong? Can evidence be wrong, if properly deciphered? Can you be wrong? I know I can, but logic and evidence cannot.

 

Your statements here make your ignorance of the scientific method easy to see. First off, a scientific theory must be designed in such a way as to be falsifiable. In other words, the theory makes a prediction and if the prediction is not true then the theory must be discarded or changed. The problem with ID is that there is no way to design such a test...therefore it is not real science.

 

On the other hand, predictions CAN be made with Evolution and often those predictions are shown to be accurate.

 

As for the idea that no jews believe in Christianity, have you ever heard of an organization called "Jews for Jesus"? Jews, who put their faith in Jesus as the promised messiah (or, in hebrew pronounciation, "hamaschiach"). Finally, Ben Stein was smart enough to have his own trivia show, "Win Ben Stein's Money". Only two people, that I know of, have beaten him on the show. Further, the categories were based on a plethora of subjects... even science. Think about it...

 

OH....he had a game show...then he must be a freaking genius. Let me give you a little thought on this, people are idiots...after watching a few episodes of "are you smarter than a 5th grader" my conclusion is that the people who run these game shows manage to dig up the most ignorant fools, the fact that Ben Stein is smarter than the dumbest people in the United States is not impressive in the least.

 

I also see that the Christianity you experienced was erroneous in many aspects, and in many ways erred from God's Word, but you even admit that you had felt a change in you, for the better, when you decided to follow Christ.

 

Your "opinions" on the proper way to follow god is just that, an opinion. Every Christian I've ever met has had an opinion on this, and they are all different, they all have "scripture" to back them up. The logical conclusion is that the reason for this differences of opinions is that the Bible doesn't have a single message, it is a confusing, contradicting book for of some good ideas mixed with some of the most deplorable teachings and bigoted nonsense one can find anywhere.

[Evolution_beyond]

My answers are not based on bias; I believe in Christianity because it was, and still is the logical conclusion, and because I have seen the evidence of it in my own life and the lives of others.

 

That it works in your life and the lives of those close to you - and that you believe it to be the logical conclusion - those factors make it a bias.

 

I don't think it is the logical conclusion - and I have seen evidence in my own life and in the lives of others that Christianity seriously messes people up.

 

So I have my bias and you have yours. Everyone has bias - what can you do?

 

 

If you notice, the answers I've given you - while not main-stream, - are scripturally, logically, and scientifically accurate.

 

Scripturally maybe. Logically and scientifically, certainly not.

 

Secondly, I still don't know what you mean by Pascal's Wager, or why you believe it to be flawed. Are you sure you're not talking about Louis Pasteur, and his experiments that successfully disproved spontaneous natural generation? If not,

I would appreciate a brief run-down on this Wager.

 

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument in favour of God. Basically it says that if God doesn't exist then the same fate awaits us all but if God does exist then it matters a great deal whether you believe in him or not. If he doesn't exist then it doesn't matter but if he does exist then it's better to believe in him so that you go to heaven rather than hell. So the conclusion is that it is more rational to gamble on God existing than to take the risk of denying his existence.

 

The argument is deeply flawed however. Firstly, it fails to notice that there are many different religions. It's not neccessarily true that you if God exists then believing in him will save you from hell because if you believe in the 'wrong' God you might go to hell anyway. This doesn't make believing in God seem such a safe bet after all. Also, it assumes that God=heaven and hell. There are forms of belief in God that don't involve there being any hell. Finally, it seems to suggest that God wouldn't mind people being insincere enough to 'bet' on his existence and pretend to believe in him even though they don't deep down. It's just as likely that God would consider such insincere grovelling as pathetic and disgusting and throw you into hell anyway!

 

Finally, though I call myself an apologeticist, I go by nobody else's work but the Word of God, and the evidence derived from experiments conducted with regards to it's truths.

 

I refuse to go by any human's opinions; that way, I can ensure that no individual's imaginations or prejudices can cause me to be misinformed.

 

Only its truths? What about truths revealed about the world and the universe through experimentation that are in conflict with the words of a book written by human beings?

 

Which will you take as authoritive? The words of a book written by human beings - or what the universe itself 'tells' us?

 

1) Prideful exclusion: it makes you feel bad to realize that you are not infallible, and might need to change to accomplish your full potential. Rather than deal with this fact, you deny it, and any and all works connected to it.

 

I accept that I am infallible. So do most other non-christians.

 

What I, and many other atheists, do not accept however is that the human beings who wrote the Bible were infallible. I don't think they were. And I would rather go by the opinions of men who have used scientific method to try and get past their own fallibility and learn what the universe itself has to teach us - than to accept the words of some fallible human beings two thousand years ago who made no such rigorous attempt to get past their own bias and fallibility.

 

2) Misinformation: you've listened to other people take the evidence, and other peoples' works out of context, and you never got the other side of the story, in it's purest format. In that case, it is all-too-likely that your conclusions are wrong; however, it wasn't your conclusions, so it isn't entirely your fault. A deeper, more thorough study of both sides of the argument, and all of the evidence at hand, will show you the truth instead.

 

I've heard enough Christian nonsense, from all kinds of denominations, and heard enough creationist nonsense to last me a lifetime. Others here could say the same.

 

You assume much about us.

 

How much information about genetics and evolution, aside from the creationist accounts have you read?

 

 

3) Personal suffering: at some point, you suffered so much, that Satan's influences were able to convince you in your hour of greatest distress of a more comforting and more convenient thought: maybe Christianity is wrong, which means you need not suffer. In that case, you're still blind to the truth, and are instead following only what one's limited observations can lead one to believe when manipulated (and too easily, in times of distress).

 

You know something? When I took ecstacy - MDMA - I suffered so much at some points, that the anti-drug forces of the world were able to convince me, in my hour of great distress, of a more comforting and more convenient thought: maybe ecstacy is causing some of the physical and psychological problems that I'm suffering.

 

I think this is analogous to the christianity thing. What if it was christianity that was causing us to suffer? What if things got a lot happier and better for us without christianity? What if it wasn't just the suffering that caused us to move away from christianity but also some very real, rational doubts about the things we were being taught?

 

Suffering is often a sign that you have something important to learn. And usually the thing that you have to learn is to get away from the thing that is causing the suffering - whatever 'good feelings' it may have also given you.

[Brother Jeff]

"Bullshit! Of course your answers are biased! Because it's what you believe and what you believe entirely affects your answers. Your observations aren't objective in the slightest." -graphicsguy

 

Lawyers are biased. One of them is right, in any given trial. I could say that you are biased. I answer based on logic and experience, not to mention the available evidence that supports God's Word.

 

"Rev, Rev, Rev...

 

This site exists for us ex-Christians. Most of us here have thought your thoughts and believed your beliefs. It only takes some thinking and studying to see the Bible for what it is - ancient mythology, and derivative at that. BTW, which Bible do you refer to? The one with all the writings, or the one edited by Catholics, or the one edited by Protestants?

 

I for one, and I expect many others, didn't leave their faith because they wanted to commit certain sins, or a loved one died unjustly and they blamed God, or because televangelists are greedy fakes. I know I never blamed Christianity for the Inquisition or witch burnings. The Bible, all by itself, ends belief when studied and compared to observable facts, experience and reality. You, like many others, have been told that the Bible is factual and even the actual Word of the One and Only God. Holding that belief you therefore must twist reality to support your foregone conclusion, for the Word of God must be true. To say that we are the ones misinterpreting evidence would be insulting were it not so absurd.

 

If your belief is comforting to you, then enjoy it. Just don't expect rational people with open minds to join you." -florduh

 

Most of you have believed what I believe, but some have not. Many of you are led to your conclusions because of the misinterpretation of the true evidence, and because you are taught things that are simply untrue. Others are led to your conclusion, believing that you were once Christians; when, by the Bible's standards, you were not. Unfortunately, there are a lot of so-called "Christians" out there (sincere or otherwise), whose misinterpretations of God's Word lead people astray. Then, when they are proven wrong, they fall back on the claim that theirs is true Christianity, when it still denies the Bible's standard of true Christianity. It is to them that I make my appeal.

 

The death of a loved one, the desire to commit certain sins, or greedy fake Christians are just some examples of what I mean. The rest of my posts state the purposes behind the examples. When improperly studied, and confused with theological and denominational doctrine, the Bible can be misconstrued as false. When truthfully examined, and taught apart from denominational theologies, it has never been proven false. By believing that the Bible means to say what other people think it means to say, rather than deducing the truth from the text itself, you are indeed misinterpreting the truth of God's word. That bias against the text itself, and it's logical conclusions, causes people to misinterpret the supporting evidence. As for absurdity, that is in the mind of the observer. To you, the Word of the Creator is absurd. To me, accepting mere scientific theory - which is theoretical on the premise that has as much chance of being right as it does of being wrong, - as unabashed truth is absurd.

 

Rational people, with open minds, share the same sentiment. Albert Einstein did. Benjamin Franklin did. To an extent, even Charles Darwin admits to it (read his work, "Life and Letters").

 

"No you didn't. I refuse to believe it because you didn't do it..."

 

"...ID is not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination. That's why it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It makes no predictions other than "goddidit" and it has no explanatory power. Therefore, it is not science. Note that Ben Stein is an actor, not a scientist. NO Jews believe in Christianity..."

 

"...See this link: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

 

If you really want to know why I don't believe that the bible is the word of a god anymore, you can read my anti-testimony here:

 

http://christianityisbullshit.com/brother-...y-in-two-parts/

 

Or, you can stick to your arrogant and misinformed assumptions. Your choice." -BrotherJeff

 

 

Isn't it funny that you've proven the old adage "whenever you're caught in a lie, deny, deny, deny"? I presented a case not only on the perfect truth of God's Word, but I also called on the works and quotes of one Robert Jastrow... which you have yet to dispute; successfully, or otherwise. If you missed it, the quote was, "In science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. This view has not always been held by scientists. Only as the result of the latest scientific discoveries can we conclude that the world did not begin spontaneously; it developed abruptly, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation". The quote from his book, "Until the Sun Dies", is: "The first billion years of the Earth's existence has been erased: that magical period, when life has been said to have evolved. The theory of organic evolution is held by scientists as a matter of faith, without proof". This from the founder and director of the N.A.S.A. Goddard institute for space studies, professor of Earth Science at Dartmouth University, and professor of Astronomy at Columbia University. Is he credible enough for you?

 

You are again mistaken. Intelligent Design has yet to be disproven conclusively, just like evolution has yet to be conclusively proven. Any scientist will tell you that the "evidence" for evolution can be successfully disputed, but not the evidence of Intelligent Design. Can logic be wrong? Can evidence be wrong, if properly deciphered? Can you be wrong? I know I can, but logic and evidence cannot.

 

As for the idea that no jews believe in Christianity, have you ever heard of an organization called "Jews for Jesus"? Jews, who put their faith in Jesus as the promised messiah (or, in hebrew pronounciation, "hamaschiach"). Finally, Ben Stein was smart enough to have his own trivia show, "Win Ben Stein's Money". Only two people, that I know of, have beaten him on the show. Further, the categories were based on a plethora of subjects... even science. Think about it...

 

As for your "testimony", I can understand how devastating mental illness can be. I've had many family members who were mentally ill, and my own mother had bi-polar disorder (and other illnesses). Off topic: there is a vitamin supplement on the market, by a man named Dr. Libby, which is a pill, made of B-6, B-12 and Folic Acid. It works like nitroglycerin pills. In 90 percent of all cases, people with mood disorders (like yours,) were pronounced cured, after about four weeks of the treatment (opposed to traditional medications). I also see that the Christianity you experienced was erroneous in many aspects, and in many ways erred from God's Word, but you even admit that you had felt a change in you, for the better, when you decided to follow Christ.

 

Also, thanks for the info on Pascal's Wager. I found it very informative...

 

Bless you all,

 

-D-

All I can conclude from your postings is that you are astonishingly ignorant. You've never heard of Pascal's Wager, which is very, very well known among theists and atheists. You've apparently never heard of the Big Bang Theory. You don't realize that Jews do not view Messianic Jews as Jews. Ever heard of Jews for Judaism? Ben Stein is an actor, not a scientist, and his intelligence does not make him right about ID. ID has NO scientific support, and is nothing but a wedge being used by creationists in an attempt to get their mythology taught in schools alongside legitimate science. Evolution has OVERWHELMING support that actually cannot be successfully disputed, though many creationists have tried.

 

You really think you have it all figured out, don't you? Please, enlighten us on what the "proper" interpretation of the bible is that will somehow magically make all of those contradictions, all of those absurdities, all of those atrocities, and all of that bad history all go away and make it all true.

 

I tried the supplement route for treating my bipolar illness. It was helpful, but the medicine I am on helps much more.

 

You're welcome for the info on Pascal's Wager.

[Evolution_beyond]

6: It's not about just belief; it's a committment, and a change of life. It's like obtaining something from a dead man's will: the only way you can get it is to obey the conditions of the will. In this case, be willing to change your ways to the better way that Christ taught, and be willing to commit yourself to that way through repentance and the symbol of baptism.

 

Does this mean I have to give up sucking cock?

 

Does it mean I have to give up enjoying dominant women - and settle instead for being the 'head of the household' like the bible suggests, even though personally I prefer it if the woman is in control.

 

Does it mean I have to give up masturbation?

 

Some of the things that christianity seems to require of people are too much - too tyrannical for God to require of us. So fuck him!

 

What have you to gain,

 

Not much by the sound of it. Some boring eternity in a boring place where everyone walks around being all well-behaved and stiff, prim and proper. No thanks.

 

I don't want to spend eternity with christians, thanks. I'd rather rock 'n' roll, drink and fuck for eternity.

 

and what have you to lose?

 

Everything that makes life worth living in my experience.

[Brother Jeff]

Does it mean I have to give up masturbation?

Absolutely! Masturbation pisses Jesus off! That's why "natural" disasters occur periodically. Jesus gets so pissed off at all of the masturbation going on all over this biblically flat world that He just has to judge some folks for it with a loving tsunami or earthquake or... or... something. Glory!

[Deva]

When improperly studied, and confused with theological and denominational doctrine, the Bible can be misconstrued as false. When truthfully examined, and taught apart from denominational theologies, it has never been proven false. By believing that the Bible means to say what other people think it means to say, rather than deducing the truth from the text itself, you are indeed misinterpreting the truth of God's word.

 

Please enlighten us as to how to properly study and interpret the Bible. What does "deducing the truth from the text itself" mean? We are separated by at least 2,000 years and in a completely different environment and culture. Do you seriously think a person of today would derive the same meaning and understanding of this text that the original writer and first readers did? Do you really think it can be read the same way as your daily newspaper? In many cases, such as the Book of Revelation, the real meaning of the symbols of the text were lost shortly after it was written.

 

You need to more carefully examine what you are saying-- and provide evidence. The Bible has "never been proven false"--what does that mean? In what way? If something is not proven false, does that mean its true? Can I prove there is not a purple unicorn living on the dark side of the moon? How is it "examined and taught apart from denominational theologies?" Up until the Reformation, the Catholic church was the ultimate authority on interpretation. To suggest it be examined apart from the Church would have been heresy.

[florduh]

When improperly studied, and confused with theological and denominational doctrine, the Bible can be misconstrued as false.

 

 

Well, there it is again! YOUR interpretation is the correct one. What a surprise. Just why is God's infallible word interpreted so many ways by sincere believers? That shouldn't be the case, should it?

 

As a born-again Christian I sincerely wanted to know the truth of the Bible and therefore studied all the doctrinal details to death. Not thinking it ever affected my salvation, I still wanted to speak in tongues if that indeed was what I was supposed to be doing. I wanted to know if I should avoid churches that allowed women preachers. You know, all that picky stuff. During my study, which included Moody and lots of diverse books on the subject, I came to realize that the Bible was another derivative mythology with many, many passages that were at odds with my experience and the scientific discoveries made since the ancient writings were collected, edited and codified by the church. Deep study (well, one really doesn't need to go very deep) revealed internal contradictions in a supposed perfect word of God. There is no logical or scientific basis for the belief.

 

Regarding evolution vs creation, while there is diversity of opinion among scientists (a good thing) that allows us a truer view of reality as knowledge evolves (also a good thing), Christians who understand evolution to be the system at work in all life on this planet (and elsewhere) are labeled by some other Real Christians to be heretics. There are some differing opinions on both sides. As a creationist, you are locked into a belief and then must try to make real evidence and observation fit into the preconceived notion. The science of evolution builds on discoveries and steadily gets closer to understanding the origin of life. It's a very tired argument, one that creationists have already lost. Most evolutionists are bored with the debate and hate to give creationism the status of being worthy of debate. Problem is, creationists are taking a militant offensive to actually teach their religious mythology as science in our American public schools. This we will never allow.

 

I guess you just need to be satisfied that you have the one, true interpretation of the Bible, and enjoy your secret knowledge and special favor of your god.

[Evolution_beyond]

Does it mean I have to give up masturbation?

Absolutely! Masturbation pisses Jesus off! That's why "natural" disasters occur periodically. Jesus gets so pissed off at all of the masturbation going on all over this biblically flat world that He just has to judge some folks for it with a loving tsunami or earthquake or... or... something. Glory!

 

And when monkeys and apes masturbate - he punishes them too. Glory!

[Deva]

6: It's not about just belief; it's a committment, and a change of life. It's like obtaining something from a dead man's will: the only way you can get it is to obey the conditions of the will. In this case, be willing to change your ways to the better way that Christ taught, and be willing to commit yourself to that way through repentance and the symbol of baptism. In essence, baptism is like marriage. Before you're married, you can date anyone you choose, even if you want to be faithful to the one you're with and do things for them to show your love. In order to mark a commitment to that person and that person alone, however, the "leap of faith" of marriage is required... still, the ritual must mean the right thing to you. In baptism's case, a willingness to leave an individualistic - and possibly wrong, - way for a definitely right way, through submission to the founder of that way; who gave His life for you to be able to get a second chance. Don't we all want a second chance?

 

So how DOES this work, Rev? Since I was Baptised in the year 1970 does that mean that mean I am still a Christian no matter what I may believe now? I sincerely believed then --with the understanding of a 12 year old. So what is a true Christian? Baptism, plus belief/faith? or just one or the other? You say Baptism is like a marriage. So can I get divorced from Christ? What undoes it? Seriously, is it some kind of reverse Baptism thing? If a person is Baptised and they believed at the time, then goes into unbelief, must they be rebaptised in your opinon?

[Grandpa Harley]

The Rev has been on the crack pipe again...

[Grandpa Harley]

BTW, RevDDM, we need the nutjob view over here...

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry343311

[Grandpa Harley]

and If the "Rev" doens't know Pascal's Wager, I'd wager he's no more a 'Reverend' than I am... does the Rev know what 'eisegesis' means?

[Guest RevDDM]

"and If the "Rev" doens't know Pascal's Wager, I'd wager he's no more a 'Reverend' than I am... does the Rev know what 'eisegesis' means?" -Grandpa Harley

 

If you knew as much about Christianity and the Bible as you think you do, you'd realize that the only requirement for a Christian leader is that he know God's Word, and live a Christian life by the Bible's standards. Trust me, the title is just a formality for people who choose to look at titles before listening to what someone has to say on the matter. In fact, Pascal's Wager and other such topics are irrelevant to me: I don't base my conclusions on the ideas of other people.

 

"BTW, RevDDM, we need the nutjob view over here... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...try343311" -Grandpa Harley

 

Ah, the endearing nicknames... good times...

 

First of all, while I do believe that homosexuality is wrong - if for no other reason than the biological and psychological illogic of it, - you are right on at least one thing: The sin of homosexuality was just one of the sins Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for; and, at that, it was not one of the more important sins in their repertoire. To say that someone deserved to die because of spreading the wrong idea to impressionable people is over the top, even for a "nutjob" like me. If he did put his life in jeopardy, then he does have to suffer the consequences of his mistakes. However, death is tragic in every case (unless the one dying is proposing a continuing threat to the public; then it's a grim necessity. I.E.: child molesters). Just because Heath Ledger did the wrong thing, that doesn't mean that he deserved to die. I, for one, mourn the loss of this potentially good influence, who seems to simply have gone down the wrong path. In no way do I condone someone's death, just because they live a lifestyle that is harmful mainly to themselves only (let alone someone who just plays the part on T.V.). Sexual matters are not, by themselves, worth dying for. Otherwise, the Lord would have condoned the stoning of the whore when the Pharisees brought her to Him for judgment. Sexual sinners should be allowed a chance to change their ways; not murdered in cold blood. I was molested as a child, and even I don't condone killing gays just because they are gay.

 

And that, dear friends, is the "nutjob's" scriptural view.

 

"The Rev has been on the crack pipe again..." -Grandpa Harley

 

My, my... I certainly hope you don't talk like that around your grandchildren!

 

 

"So how DOES this work, Rev? Since I was Baptised in the year 1970 does that mean that mean I am still a Christian no matter what I may believe now? I sincerely believed then --with the understanding of a 12 year old. So what is a true Christian? Baptism, plus belief/faith? or just one or the other? You say Baptism is like a marriage. So can I get divorced from Christ? What undoes it? Seriously, is it some kind of reverse Baptism thing? If a person is Baptised and they believed at the time, then goes into unbelief, must they be rebaptised in your opinon? " -Deva

 

First of all, the idea that you can't give back Christianity is flawed. The Bible makes numerous references that tell us that you can give back salvation, just like any gift that you recieve of your own free will. If it was meaningless to you, then you were never saved to begin with. Remember that it is the significance of the act, not the act itself, which saves us.

 

Secondly, it seems to me that your understanding of salvation and Christianity were not fully developed. If your conception of them, from when you were twelve, is all you're going on, you have a lot to learn on this most important of subjects.

 

Christianity is this:

 

-Hearing the Word,

-Believing what it teaches,

-Repenting of your sins before the Father, by Christ's sacrifice, and accepting Him as your Lord and Savior,

-Being baptized to mark your faith and dedication to Christ and His way, and

-Remaining faithful to the Way, and not turning back to your own way of your own free will (of "sound" mind and body).

 

Thirdly, a person becomes "unbaptized", or "divorced" from Christ for the same reason as one becomes divorced from their mate: adultery. If you decide to reject Christ and follow a non-Christian way, you are no longer a Christian. If, however, you decided this because of some misinformation or duress, then you can still come back: just like Christ doesn't damn those who don't understand what they're doing, neither does He damn those whose minds are led to the wrong conclusion. He didn't damn Peter for forsaking Him, because Peter wasn't thinking "rationally". His decision was guided by irrational fear. That's just one example...

 

If you do realize the error of your ways, and you do want to return to the right path because you want to do the right thing, then you can go through the process again, and you will be saved. Just make sure you understand it this time, and you're doing it for the right reasons... just like marriage should be.

 

"Well, there it is again! YOUR interpretation is the correct one. What a surprise. Just why is God's infallible word interpreted so many ways by sincere believers? That shouldn't be the case, should it?"

 

Again, for the hard-of-seeing: IT ISN'T MY WAY; IT'S THE BIBLE'S WAY! I don't make things up, or take things out of context, just to suit me. Believe me; sometimes, I have trouble with what the Bible says, but that doesn't make it any less true.

 

"As a born-again Christian I sincerely wanted to know the truth of the Bible and therefore studied all the doctrinal details to death."

 

There was your first mistake: listening to other people, rather than the Bible itself, in regards to what it says.

 

"Not thinking it ever affected my salvation, I still wanted to speak in tongues if that indeed was what I was supposed to be doing."

 

More about other peoples' opinions about what the Bible says! They take one part of a verse, and twist it to say what they want it to say, without consulting other parts of God's Word, to see what it says all together!

 

"I wanted to know if I should avoid churches that allowed women preachers. You know, all that picky stuff."

 

Here's one for you: "Speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent".

 

"During my study, which included Moody and lots of diverse books on the subject, I came to realize that the Bible was another derivative mythology with many, many passages that were at odds with my experience and the scientific discoveries made since the ancient writings were collected, edited and codified by the church."

 

So, other peoples' conflicting opinions on what the Bible can clarify by itself, about itself, caused your disbelief. What a shock!

 

"Deep study (well, one really doesn't need to go very deep)..."

 

So, you didn't bother to try to really understand the Bible; you just stuck to your preconcieved notions, and made a good show of it. Another shock!

 

"revealed internal contradictions in a supposed perfect word of God. There is no logical or scientific basis for the belief."

 

So, you didn't study the Bible with any true depth; you took other peoples' opinions on it, rather than doing the studying yourself; and you expect me to believe that you studied anything concerning logical or scientific basis for the belief? Isn't that the same hypocrisy you blame true Christians for?

 

"Regarding evolution vs creation, while there is diversity of opinion among scientists (a good thing) that allows us a truer view of reality as knowledge 'evolves' (also a good thing), Christians who understand evolution to be the system at work in all life on this planet (and elsewhere) are labeled by some other Real Christians to be heretics."

 

And their faith gets them a label from Darwinians as lunatics and fools. Which one, if either, is right?

 

"There are some differing opinions on both sides. As a creationist, you are locked into a belief and then must try to make real evidence and observation fit into the preconceived notion."

 

As a creationist, I believe what all of the evidence proves. Evolutionists believe what evidence fits their idea, and either misinterpret or disregard the rest. The same problem that led to Isaac blessing Jacob, instead of Esau. Example: you believe that fossils can only be made over millions of years time. Yet, when you learn of fast-fossilization, and how it supports the deluge history as well as the young-earth documentation (which would prove creation, rather than evolution), you disregard it. Have you even heard of fast-fossilization? And, if evolution is true, why doesn't it happen today? Something that is natural continues to happen throughout time (trees grow, bugs burrow, et cetera). Yet, not one case of evolution - inside, or outside of a laboratory setting, - is on record. If evolution were true, it would keep happening, ad infinitum; and note that we're not discussing the only part of the evolutionary theory to be observed and proven (mutation), upon which the Darwinian hangs his belief, by believing that mutation has no boundaries. Also note that scientists that believe in evolution never have gotten genetic material to evolve into a cell without an intelligent effort at designing the genetic structure itself; and yet, scientists are nearly complete with building a rare strain of an S.T.D. by personally arranging genetic material into over 3,300 different lines of genetic codes. The fact that nothing has ever evolved naturally, either in a lab or outside of it, yet it does take an intelligent being to form living things (and non living things) from available material (which should be able to evolve with no intelligent assistance whatsoever, naturally,) proves that only an intelligent force could be the origin of anything that exists... and I haven't even gotten to the genetic complexity of humanity, the atomic complexity of different kinds of matter itself, or the fact that every element in the human body is the same - and in the same amounts, - as the composite of middle-eastern clay (which any biochemist will tell you is true).

 

"The science of evolution builds on discoveries and steadily gets closer to understanding the origin of life. It's a very tired argument, one that creationists have already lost."

 

Just like losing an argument to a blind man, who insists that the sky is the color of boogers all the time...

 

"Most evolutionists are bored with the debate and hate to give creationism the status of being worthy of debate."

 

And yet, creationist scientists have a still-standing challenge to any scientist who can affirm that evolution has been scientifically proven. No Darwinian has yet claimed the money in the wager, or come up with a similar wager against creationism. If they did, Robert Jastrow, and the scientists on the film "Expelled" would be rich by now...

 

"Problem is, creationists are taking a militant offensive to actually teach their religious mythology as science in our American public schools."

 

Like how Darwinians did, over 60 years ago?

 

"This we will never allow."

 

Nor do Communists, socialists, of fascists. Which are you?

 

"I guess you just need to be satisfied that you have the one, true interpretation of the Bible, and enjoy your secret knowledge and special favor of your god."

 

I will only be satisfied when the truth is exposed to the world, and there are no more excuses for disbelief. You can believe any lie you choose to believe, but someday you'll be the one to have to admit that Darwinism is just another religion...

 

 

"Please enlighten us as to how to properly study and interpret the Bible. What does "deducing the truth from the text itself" mean? We are separated by at least 2,000 years and in a completely different environment and culture. Do you seriously think a person of today would derive the same meaning and understanding of this text that the original writer and first readers did? Do you really think it can be read the same way as your daily newspaper? In many cases, such as the Book of Revelation, the real meaning of the symbols of the text were lost shortly after it was written."

 

You take every passage the Bible offers on any subject, eliminate the meanings that can't possibly be supported by all the available texts, and come to the proper meaning. It's that simple. Nothing more than study and brain-power.

 

"You need to more carefully examine what you are saying-- and provide evidence. The Bible has "never been proven false"--what does that mean? In what way? If something is not proven false, does that mean its true? Can I prove there is not a purple unicorn living on the dark side of the moon? How is it "examined and taught apart from denominational theologies?" Up until the Reformation, the Catholic church was the ultimate authority on interpretation. To suggest it be examined apart from the Church would have been heresy."

 

Bad example, Deva. Nothing the Bible truly teaches has ever been proven false or wrong. The misinterpretations of it have, but that doesn't negate the facts. If something is not false, can it be anything but true? You can prove there is no purple unicorn on the dark side of the Moon: none of the evidence taken from the moon supports that idea. The Catholic church misinterpreted it, and allowed the perverted texts of the apocrypha (a series of "Jewish" writings that even Jews don't support,) to be inserted to try to justify their causes.

 

"Does this mean I have to give up sucking cock?"

 

Who would want to, in their right mind? Why not? Does anything advantageous come from it?

 

"Does it mean I have to give up enjoying dominant women - and settle instead for being the 'head of the household' like the bible suggests, even though personally I prefer it if the woman is in control."

 

As a "free"man, Evolution Beyond, I would think that being dominated would leave a "bad taste in your mouth" (no pun intended).

 

"Does it mean I have to give up masturbation?"

 

Are their any meaningful advantages to masturbation? If not, why not give it up for something worthwhile?

 

"Some of the things that christianity seems to require of people are too much"

 

The same line criminals use. Can't you see how wrong that idea is?

 

"- too tyrannical for God to require of us."

 

So, you're greater than the Creator of all things... even you? What have you made out of nothingness lately?

 

"So fuck him!"

 

Like your juvenile insults against Him mean anything to your Creator.

 

Not much by the sound of it. Some boring eternity in a boring place where everyone walks around being all well-behaved and stiff, prim and proper. No thanks.

 

"I don't want to spend eternity with christians, thanks. I'd rather rock 'n' roll, drink and fuck for eternity."

 

Too bad it won't be that way... Do you think you are good enough to break any law, devine or otherwise, and get away with it... even be rewarded for it? And you claim I'm the one who's illogical!

 

"Everything that makes life worth living in my experience."

 

Not too experienced in anything but sin, are you?

 

 

"All I can conclude from your postings is that you are astonishingly ignorant."

 

Ignorance is as ignorance does. You refuse to hear out my arguments, and that makes you think I'm ignorant? Why? Because you're wrong, and don't want to admit it, or because you can't stand any opinion but your own? Many of you accuse true Christians of the same things you yourselves do on this board! How hypocritical is that?

 

"You've never heard of Pascal's Wager, which is very, very well known among theists and atheists."

 

First, I've heard of it, just not about it. Second, why would I care about other peoples' opinions about the Bible, when I can find out it's own opinion of itself?

 

"You've apparently never heard of the Big Bang Theory."

 

Ah, the fairy-tale of the "big bang". I've disproven that before, when I was in the seventh grade, to my science teacher... in Lincoln, Nebraska, no less: the capital of liberal fascism.

 

"You don't realize that Jews do not view Messianic Jews as Jews."

 

Some Jews don't. However, since Messianic Jews choose to follow Jewish traditions in accordance with their Christian faith, they are still technically Jews.

 

"Ever heard of Jews for Judaism?"

 

Not really... Any links?

 

"Ben Stein is an actor, not a scientist, and his intelligence does not make him right about ID."

 

If you've ever even read about his movie, "Expelled", you realize he doesn't claim to be a scientist. He is performing a journalistic service, in which he chronicles the many scientists that were expelled from the scientific community for believing in, and presenting actual evidence of, Creation. No other reason; just a juvenile smear-campaign. I never claimed that he himself was a scientist; however, in the movie, he does interview them, and they believe in Creation, by Intelligent Design...

 

"ID has NO scientific support, and is nothing but a wedge being used by creationists in an attempt to get their mythology taught in schools alongside legitimate science."

 

You're mixed up. Intelligent Design has all the evidence in the World, and in Space. Scientific support is meaningless, without evidence to back it up... at least, that's what science is supposed to be all about... Creation was taught in schools until the 1940's, when Darwinians succeeded in getting their mistakes and lies taught in school... and slowly edged out the competition, through such abuses as the abuse of the Separation of Church and State.

 

"Evolution has OVERWHELMING support that actually cannot be successfully disputed, though many creationists have tried."

 

Support is meaningless... Evidence is what counts. I don't care if Einstein himself supported evolution (which he didn't); the evidence against it is so complete, that even Darwin admitted that evolution is a flawed theory based on nothing but imagination.

 

"You really think you have it all figured out, don't you? Please, enlighten us on what the "proper" interpretation of the bible is that will somehow magically make all of those contradictions, all of those absurdities, all of those atrocities, and all of that bad history all go away and make it all true."

 

I've already explained how the Bible itself tells us to learn from it. Contradictions are dissolved by that scriptural method; as are "absurdities". The atrocities would have been even greater if God had not done, and commanded, what He did. I'll explain later...

 

-D-

 

P.S. - if there are any more Biblical questions, e-mail me at dameon692002@yahoo.com

 

I tried the supplement route for treating my bipolar illness. It was helpful, but the medicine I am on helps much more.

 

You're welcome for the info on Pascal's Wager.

[Grandpa Harley]

You parade that ignorance... I'm more accustomed to 'proper' clergy (That is Roman or Anglo Catholic...) who have a decent education,

 

"I don't base my conclusions on the ideas of other people." - two thirds of your eisegesis is based on Dogma, all of it Roman Catholic, that is opinion external to the much touted 'scripture'... the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was NOTHING compared to the sin of Lot... let's see... hand daughters out for gang rape, then gets pissed up and fucks his daughters? Nice guy. but that's my opinion based on reading the text, with no one else's opinion. Where did you get the idea that the Sodomites were worse than Lot? The crowd were only interested in ADULTS, not the children of Lot... and death for looking back was a bit steep for looking back. BUt then God is god thus he can do what he fucking likes... Doctrine of God's sovereignty (another Roman Dogma)I'm so pleased that someone withthe arrogance and hubris to think he's got God's only truth is here to share it... can't you just go molest a sheep or something?

 

You, sir are a loon... so, why are you here... we know the bible better than you, we know the cult better than you, we know history better than you... so what's the benefit to us of you being here. You have nothing we need, nothing we want, and nothing we didn't all once have...

 

Please, don't explain anything further... you're just depressing. I do hope you've not bred you bigot...

[florduh]

You parade that ignorance... I'm more accustomed to 'proper' clergy (That is Roman or Anglo Catholic...) who have a decent education,

 

"I don't base my conclusions on the ideas of other people." - two thirds of your eisegesis is based on Dogma, all of it Roman Catholic, that is opinion external to the much touted 'scripture'... the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was NOTHING compared to the sin of Lot... let's see... hand daughters out for gang rape, then gets pissed up and fucks his daughters? Nice guy. but that's my opinion based on reading the text, with no one else's opinion. Where did you get the idea that the Sodomites were worse than Lot? The crowd were only interested in ADULTS, not the children of Lot... and death for looking back was a bit steep for looking back. BUt then God is god thus he can do what he fucking likes... Doctrine of God's sovereignty (another Roman Dogma)I'm so pleased that someone withthe arrogance and hubris to think he's got God's only truth is here to share it... can't you just go molest a sheep or something?

 

You, sir are a loon... so, why are you here... we know the bible better than you, we know the cult better than you, we know history better than you... so what's the benefit to us of you being here. You have nothing we need, nothing we want, and nothing we didn't all once have...

 

Please, don't explain anything further... you're just depressing. I do hope you've not bred you bigot...

 

 

GH, you are correct. I tried to be nice and make sense, but it is hopeless. I clearly stated that I relied on the Bible itself for understanding, not other's opinions, as he has obviously done. I guess everyone has the correct interpretation of the book, they all just happen to be different.

 

- Chris

[Grandpa Harley]

I awlays find it painful when people trash RCs when they spout their Dogma 99% of the time. It's just hypocrisy... but then, Christians are vermin, thus I don't bother with 'nice' anymore... interesting to note how he went on to my fitness to be Grandfather... means he has done no reading... It's a shit bomber, like Kraphead, the 'Ladies' Friend'... Let's hear it for pregnant and barefoot!

[GraphicsGuy]

Lawyers are biased. One of them is right, in any given trial. I could say that you are biased. I answer based on logic and experience, not to mention the available evidence that supports God's Word.

 

OMG...OF COURSE I am biased! That is exactly why I answered you originally. You asked us to respond without bashing Xianity so I asked you to respond on the alternative and not be biased FOR Xianity.

 

You cannot do it. Unless you present both sides of the argument you cannot be non-biased. You said you based your answer(s) on logic and experience. Your experience is biased towards Xianity. Your logic is biased towards your experience. You only presented evidence purported to support The Word™.

 

What about all the evidence that does not support The Word™! I do not see you posting that and looking at both sides of the argument objectively.

 

If you are going to ask us to do one, then you should live up to the same.

 

My experience flies in the face of every promise in the NT. My logic hits a brick wall when the only answer available is Goddidit. The evidence I see to support the Bible hits my logic and my experience and falls flat. Of course I am biased. Unless Jesus comes down and apologizes in person to me I will never follow him again.

[Deva]

First of all, the idea that you can't give back Christianity is flawed. The Bible makes numerous references that tell us that you can give back salvation, just like any gift that you recieve of your own free will.

 

That's new, you are obviously not of the "once saved always saved" crowd.

 

If it was meaningless to you, then you were never saved to begin with. Remember that it is the significance of the act, not the act itself, which saves us.

 

Whoops, maybe you are? Anyway, for the record, it wasn't "meaningless" to me at the time I was baptised. You are quite confusing, Rev.

 

Secondly, it seems to me that your understanding of salvation and Christianity were not fully developed.

 

According to whose standards? How developed an understanding of Christianity do I need to be saved? Being raised in it and reading it isn't sufficient?

 

I heard it, I believed it at one time, I was baptized -- but, when I was an adult I saw it was not in accordance with reality. I don't know how old you are Rev, but do you think that you could go back again to think the same way you did when you were 12?

 

If you do realize the error of your ways, and you do want to return to the right path because you want to do the right thing, then you can go through the process again, and you will be saved. Just make sure you understand it this time, and you're doing it for the right reasons... just like marriage should be.

 

Passing by the arrogance of the rest of this statement - I'll take that as a Yes, in your view I would have to be baptised again.

 

Bad example, Deva. Nothing the Bible truly teaches has ever been proven false or wrong. The misinterpretations of it have, but that doesn't negate the facts. If something is not false, can it be anything but true? You can prove there is no purple unicorn on the dark side of the Moon: none of the evidence taken from the moon supports that idea. The Catholic church misinterpreted it, and allowed the perverted texts of the apocrypha (a series of "Jewish" writings that even Jews don't support,) to be inserted to try to justify their causes.

 

Bad example or not, without the Catholic church you would have no Bible. Thats a fact whether you like it or not. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, we've established he's a moron... not why he thinks he has anything new to say to us... It's like the thing between Moriarty and Holmes, only he's too dumb to realise that everything he could say has already passed through our minds...

 

"'You evidently don't know me,' said he.

 

"'On the contrary,' I answered, 'I think it is fairly evident that I do. Pray take a chair. I can spare you five minutes if you have anything to say.'

 

"'All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,' said he.

 

"'Then possibly my answer has crossed yours,' I replied.

 

"'You stand fast?'

 

"'Absolutely.'

[Deva]

Well, we've established he's a moron... not why he thinks he has anything new to say to us...

 

Just speculating - Rev thinks that he is the only one who can convince us to come back to the fold where countless others, including our own parents, have failed.

 

True, he's not saying anything we haven't heard before a thousand times.

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, he's not MY Professor Moriarty... he's barely literate...

[Evolution_beyond]

"Does this mean I have to give up sucking cock?"

 

Who would want to, in their right mind? Why not? Does anything advantageous come from it?

 

Oh, plenty of people want to. Women, for example. And some men too.

 

Does anything disadvantageous come from it?

 

Something has to be disadvantageous to be wrong. Otherwise, all our little hobbies and interests could be wrong simply because they are not particularly advantageous.

 

"Does it mean I have to give up enjoying dominant women - and settle instead for being the 'head of the household' like the bible suggests, even though personally I prefer it if the woman is in control."

 

As a "free"man, Evolution Beyond, I would think that being dominated would leave a "bad taste in your mouth" (no pun intended).

 

It depends in what way I am being dominated. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.

 

I love assertive women - I love being the passive, receptive partner to a strong, assertive woman. I actually like giving up control in some areas of my life - so that I can better admire the power and strength that she has.

 

Of course I always like to be treated with respect - and I won't stand for someone dominating and controlling me in ways that don't bring me pleasure but actually hurt me and make me feel angry.

 

But I do like to switch gender roles a little bit - to be the receptive, passive, sensitive partner and for the woman to be the strong leader in the relationship.

 

But the Bible seems to support and require traditional gender roles - and that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

"Does it mean I have to give up masturbation?"

 

Are their any meaningful advantages to masturbation?

 

Yes. Plenty.

 

"Some of the things that christianity seems to require of people are too much"

 

The same line criminals use. Can't you see how wrong that idea is?

 

But I think I've made my thinking clear on why I think this way. Criminals hurt other people against their will. That makes what they do very different.

 

"- too tyrannical for God to require of us."

 

So, you're greater than the Creator of all things... even you? What have you made out of nothingness lately?

 

The way Christianity portrays this Creator it's not very hard to be better than him. Ever considered that Christianity's portrayal of God is what is wrong? That God, if he exists, cannot be at all like that - because the Christian God is clearly a creation of flawed human minds?

 

"So fuck him!"

 

Like your juvenile insults against Him mean anything to your Creator.

 

I'm sure God, if he exists, would know that I don't mean him - that I am only referring to the stupid, made-up fiction that Christians profess.

 

Not much by the sound of it. Some boring eternity in a boring place where everyone walks around being all well-behaved and stiff, prim and proper. No thanks.

 

"I don't want to spend eternity with christians, thanks. I'd rather rock 'n' roll, drink and fuck for eternity."

 

Too bad it won't be that way... Do you think you are good enough to break any law, devine or otherwise, and get away with it... even be rewarded for it? And you claim I'm the one who's illogical!

 

Laws are created by human beings so that we can all get along with each other better - thus making life better and more comfortable for all of us.

 

I agree with laws like that. (eg. not stealing, not killing, not raping)

 

I don't agree with arbitary laws that seem to only exist because certain people are scared of sex, scared of intoxication and scared of fun.

 

Many Christian laws are not right and are certainly not divine, in my opinion.

 

"Everything that makes life worth living in my experience."

 

Not too experienced in anything but sin, are you?

 

You don't know me or what I am experienced in. I was a christian once (surprise, surprise - this is ex-christian.net after all). I have been a very faithful, very well-behaved boyfriend of a fundamentalist christian woman in the past.

 

I have experience of things other than sin. I have lived 'pure' in the past. I didn't like it.

 

Now I try to be good (ie. not hurt people) - but I don't believe in being 'chaste', 'pure' etc. If sex, drinking and music really are sin (as you seem to be implying above) - then I'd say that sin is more fun than not sinning!

[Grandpa Harley]

Sex is more fun than shellfish and bacon...