Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Calling All Liberal Christians


Guest Jen

Recommended Posts

See, that's the thing. To me it looks like this kindgdom thing is something I want nothing to do with; why do we have to wait for it if it's such a good thing, and if it is necessary, why doesn't anyone know why? Like I said, if god is omnipotent, or has that potential, and does not resolve the problem of evil, then he's not all-good. I believe that is part of the riddle of Epicurus. I'd respect your opinion more, if you'd just admit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    46

  • Lycorth

    14

  • rad

    13

  • Amethyst

    12

See, that's the thing. To me it looks like this kindgdom thing is something I want nothing to do with; why do we have to wait for it if it's such a good thing, and if it is necessary, why doesn't anyone know why? Like I said, if god is omnipotent, or has that potential, and does not resolve the problem of evil, then he's not all-good. I believe that is part of the riddle of Epicurus. I'd respect your opinion more, if you'd just admit that.

 

Well, Dhampir, I can't admit something I don't feel. Sorry. I come down not with Epicurus on the problem of evil, but with Augustine's concept of Limited Sovereignty. Somewhere on here I said that I see God almost as I see a scientist and this earth as something of a laboratory. Just as the scientist has limited sovereignty during the run of the experiment, but later steps in and stops the process, God will at some point end the experiment and that will be that. In the meantime, we don't know that we do not volunteer to be part of this experiment.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, if he's a scientist, or something like that that we can't quite grasp, then it looks like you have no choice but to admit that he's not all-good. Whether you do or not. At any rate, if your scenario is the case (that small aspect actually is similar to my own thinking on god), then why bother being bothered by evil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:Hmm: God a scientist??? Taat I just think is kind of funny oh well.

 

I have a few questions I want to ask you and I would like to see how you respond?

 

1. Is God all good?

2. If you said yes let me ask do you think Hitler was all good?

3. If you saw someone say "dash a the babies against rock" would you defend them.

4. Jesus? Do you believe he is God?

5. Should you be held accountable of your ancestors of the pasts actions. If they did a crime should you be thrown in a fire to burn to death.

6. WOULD you throw a child in hell?

 

7. God is all knowing and he could do anything but yet he doesn't do anything. He even knew Adam and Eve would sin but yet he screws ALL humanity. Would you of defeated the snake or not create it at all?

 

8. NAME 10 times Satan ordered killings. (I can name 100's where God does it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:Hmm: God a scientist??? Taat I just think is kind of funny oh well.

 

I have a few questions I want to ask you and I would like to see how you respond?

 

1. Is God all good?

2. If you said yes let me ask do you think Hitler was all good?

3. If you saw someone say "dash a the babies against rock" would you defend them.

4. Jesus? Do you believe he is God?

5. Should you be held accountable of your ancestors of the pasts actions. If they did a crime should you be thrown in a fire to burn to death.

6. WOULD you throw a child in hell?

7. God is all knowing and he could do anything but yet he doesn't do anything. He even knew Adam and Eve would sin but yet he screws ALL humanity. Would you of defeated the snake or not create it at all?

8. NAME 10 times Satan ordered killings. (I can name 100's where God does it)

 

Let me try Ramen666.

 

1. Yes. Even Jesus instructed others not to refer to him as good as only God is good.

 

2. No. I'm sure Hitler had some good. I've seen pictures of him as a baby and he looks beautiful and peaceful and pleasant. I'm sure he was dearly loved by his mother. Makes you wonder what went wrong, doesn't it!

 

3. No. Funny you mention that one as Psalm 137 is among my favorites -- until it gets to verse 9. I would never defend such a mean-spirited attack. We must remember that that psalm was written by a human being, not by God and I think that that human being who wrote so beautfully until verse 9 went way off on that final verse. He was overcome with his anger and hellbent on revenge. We all occasionally in our anger spout mean-spirited diatribes full of anger, and even violence. Too bad the editors of the Bible didn't leave the fleshly outburst that concludes Psalm 137 on the cutting-room floor of some cave somewhere. Jesus certainly would not approve of such a passage.

 

4. I believe Jesus is the "express image of God." I believe that he is the "son of God." I believe that "in him all things were made." I believe in his virgin birth, his miracles, his death and resurrection. While he and the Father are one in thought and purpose and intent, they are two separate beings.

 

5. No. And I reject this idea as correct. In those passages in which words are put in God's mouth to the effect that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the second and third generations, it is countered by those verses that claim that God will revisit the righteousness of the fathers upon the children for a thousand generations. What is interesting is that in many cases, the sins of the fathers are revisted on the children. Working with inmates (drug addicts, murderers, rapists, etc.) as I do, I know that most of them had imprisoned fathers and came from homes torn apart by drugs and alcohol. The "sins" are being passed on like a intergenerational curse.

 

6. No. I wouldn't throw a child anywhere. And there is no hellfire.

 

7. Good question. I'll say this. Men and women have children all the time, knowing all the risks -- knowing that their children might be born with problems; knowing that their child might die in a car accident at age 16; knowing that anything and everything could happen to their child; even knowing that the child likely will have their hearts broken many times and weep at their parents' funerals, and die themselves, too. Yet, yet, yet, the desire to procreate is insatiable. So, too, with God. While God may have known the outcome (we don't know what God knows) of this experiment, his desire to bless with the gift of life overcame any trepidation about the pain that would ensue. And it is highly likely that either we all had a choice about coming here or one day will be glad we did.

 

8. That would be hard to do from the biblical text, but I know that Jesus is quoted as saying that satan ("the thief") comes only to steal, kill and destroy and there are many stories of demons tormenting many who were healed by Jesus. It is possible, in my view, that Hitler was a demoniac.

 

 

Now, I have a question for you: If you don't believe the Bible is true, if you don't believe it contains any real history, why do you use it to accuse God? Is it possible to separate God from the Bible? Why allow what you believe are screwed-up Christians (and there are many of them!) to besmirch God with their trashy book? Why not separate the two? I find it interesting that a book that is altogether denied and deemed myth and fairy tale is used in many posts as though it were admissible as evidence for the truth about God? I think we can use it to ascertain a glimpse at least of God's nature, but if one denies it any such relevance, why use it to accuse God? Not desiring to be argumentative, just curious about this point.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Third World children die it is because we human beings have failed.

 

That's true - everything is our fault. The good, the bad, the in-between - everything. There is no god to praise for the good or curse for the bad. But the examples about such things are to point out that, if the Xian god were all-loving and all-powerful, such suffering simply would not exist.

 

Not only would a god with such characteristics be morally obligated to end all suffering, but a perfect god wouldn't create beings that would do evil. Only an imperfect god would create imperfect beings. To do less would be illogical.

 

Well, hellfire (definition=Dante's Inferno) doesn't motivate me since I don't believe it exists. It doesn't matter to me what the church of the Middle Ages taught or the chuch down the street this morning taught about hellfire. In my view, the doctrine of hellfire has done more harm than good, much more harm. I look forward to a complete abandonment of this non-scriptural teaching! Soon, I hope.

 

It's good that you don't believe in Hell, but the fact remains that despite your opinions, the bulk of Xian tradition and the Babble itself do indeed refer to an eternal "lake of fire." Not liking it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

I may despise Xianity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't have the traits about it I loathe the most.

 

To insist that the very clear teachings about Hell are metaphorical yet insist that Jebus is a real being doesn't make sense. Either it's all about real people, places, and things, or it's all metaphors. Why choose to believe only the "nice" stuff is literal and the unpleasant stuff metaphorical? Seems like cherry-picking to me.

 

Thankfully, in our country, we have a right to believe in the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot or nothing or a Creator God revealed in Jesus the Christ. We have this right, and the right to evangelize our views. This website exists, thank God, because we have a right in this country to throw off a religion that did not work for us and evangelize others to do likewise or at least support them in their decision to discard that old garment that didn't fit very well.

 

Yes, but what's your point? That doesn't relate to anyhing I said.

 

God cannot expect that we believe in Jesus if we don't. If we don't, we don't.

 

Your god expects precisely that. Jebus himself said that he is the way and the truth and the life. That's hardly an inclusivist notion.

 

While there is no proof outside the gospels that Jesus was from God or that he performed miracles or that he was resurrected, there is proof that he existed as a historical personage, no matter how misunderstood you believe he may have been. No reputable scholar or historian would deny the existence of a historical Jesus.

 

What proof? Cite one source.

 

There are plenty of reasons to think Jebus never existed, both here and here and here.

 

One thing: In writing that "if we must have Xians..." it made me feel that you'd rather not have Christians around, that you'd like to do away with us. While some Christians get my goat (I could name them for days, but will suffice it to name just one: Jerry Falwell), I have no right to wish anyone away. I want to have Jews around and Muslims and Atheists and Agnostics and Christians and Gay people and Straight people and so on. Don't you?

 

I'd rather Xianity did not exist, yes. Only the Xians who use their religion as an excuse to harm others would I want to do away with. So long as Xians don't use their religion as an excuse to do harm (which would mean that they'd have to believe in a metaphorical Xianity, not a literal one, because no one has ever killed anyone over a commonly-understood metaphor) I'm ok with them. Same goes for Moose-lims. Orthodox Jews are generally exempt since their religion is very folkish and not universalist.

 

Otherwise, I oppose every manifestation of the Xian religion in any literal sense, much as oppose any literal interpretation of any part of any Abrahamic religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather Xianity did not exist, yes. Only the Xians who use their religion as an excuse to harm others would I want to do away with. So long as Xians don't use their religion as an excuse to do harm (which would mean that they'd have to believe in a metaphorical Xianity, not a literal one, because no one has ever killed anyone over a commonly-understood metaphor) I'm ok with them. Same goes for Moose-lims. Orthodox Jews are generally exempt since their religion is very folkish and not universalist.

 

Otherwise, I oppose every manifestation of the Xian religion in any literal sense, much as oppose any literal interpretation of any part of any Abrahamic religion.

 

I don't know if you meant it to seem this way, Varokhar, but this sounds as though only those who believe as you want them to believe would be allowed to live in your world. Those who won't submit to your views must be done away with. Isn't this the very thing you accuse God of doing? Truly, truly, I'm not trying to be accusatory, but it seems to me that Varokharity would be quite exclusive. Wouldn't someone like me who believes in a literal Jesus who literally rose from the dead be at grave risk in a world ruled by Varokharity?

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you meant it to seem this way, Varokhar, but this sounds as though only those who believe as you want them to believe would be allowed to live in your world. Those who won't submit to your views must be done away with. Isn't this the very thing you accuse God of doing? Truly, truly, I'm not trying to be accusatory, but it seems to me that Varokharity would be quite exclusive. Wouldn't someone like me who believes in a literal Jesus who literally rose from the dead be at grave risk in a world ruled by Varokharity?

 

When did I say anything about killing all Xians? Or anyone, for that matter. I think that only those who use their religion as an excuse to harm others should have anything done about them, to repeat myself. If you don't, why?

 

In all honesty, I think you may be a bit conditioned to think everyone is "persecuting" Xians. Honestly, I was the same, once. Try to broaden your views on what non-Xians think without filtering them through what your favorite pastor wants you to think about us.

 

Click my sig image and visit my website if you really want to know what I think.

 

I think people who believe in the Jebus you describe are believing a lie, but I wouldn't kill them - unless they used that as an excuse to hurt someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did I say anything about killing all Xians? Or anyone, for that matter. I think that only those who use their religion as an excuse to harm others should have anything done about them, to repeat myself. If you don't, why?

 

In all honesty, I think you may be a bit conditioned to think everyone is "persecuting" Xians. Honestly, I was the same, once. Try to broaden your views on what non-Xians think without filtering them through what your favorite pastor wants you to think about us.

 

Click my sig image and visit my website if you really want to know what I think.

 

I think people who believe in the Jebus you describe are believing a lie, but I wouldn't kill them - unless they used that as an excuse to hurt someone else.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it seemed that you were ready to do away with anyone who believed in a literal Jesus who literally rose from the dead.

 

I don't feel Christians are persecuted in America. In other parts of the world, yes. But not here. As a gay person, sometimes I feel gay people are ... not persecuted...discriminated against. But I don't get too hung up on that. Life is too short to be too angry about anything.

 

Just FYI, I don't have a favorite pastor. I haven't attended a church service more than a few dozen times in the past 20 years. While I listen to some Internet sermons, like to study religion, and read half of the gospel of Mark this very day, church attendance just doesn't feed my spirit.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a gay person, sometimes I feel gay people are ... not persecuted...discriminated against. But I don't get too hung up on that.

So you're a gay Christian, eh? Just out of curiosity, how do you get around this:

 

'If a man lies with a man, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

- Leviticus 20:13

 

As a gay person, how do you feel about a god who calls for the violent murder of gay people? Do you cherry pick this verse out of existence, or do you re-work the verses that show god's disgust for homosexuals to make them say something other than what they actually say? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel Christians are persecuted in America. In other parts of the world, yes. But not here. As a gay person, sometimes I feel gay people are ... not persecuted...discriminated against. But I don't get too hung up on that. Life is too short to be too angry about anything.

 

Gays are more discriminated against than Xians. And only in fundy Moose-lim countries (or perhaps in Communist countries) can Xians even claim persecution. Otherwise, I agree that there's no persecution of Xians in America.

 

Good to hear you don't have a pastor or attend church. There's hope for you yet ;)

 

And yes, how do you deal with the blatant and obvious anti-homosexual sentiments expressed in the Babble? That's like having a Jewish Nazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a gay person, sometimes I feel gay people are ... not persecuted...discriminated against. But I don't get too hung up on that.

So you're a gay Christian, eh? Just out of curiosity, how do you get around this:

 

'If a man lies with a man, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

- Leviticus 20:13

 

As a gay person, how do you feel about a god who calls for the violent murder of gay people? Do you cherry pick this verse out of existence, or do you re-work the verses that show god's disgust for homosexuals to make them say something other than what they actually say? :shrug:

 

Very fair question, Mike D. I'd leave that one on the cutting-room floor, too. As well as Paul's words in Romans 1 about "men with men" and "against nature." There is no way around the fact that these scriptures indict homosexual persons. But I believe that Paul was wrong (as he is many times, being a man confined to his time, his culture, his prejudices), and I do not believe that these words placed on God's lips are God's. There's a lost of stuff in Leviticus that is really strange and, as you know, non-biding on those in Christ. But still, I'd clip it out, if I could.

 

I am very pleased that there is no record that Jesus ever even approached the topic of homosexuality...maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and James Dobson could learn something from that!

 

That's my honest answer to your honest and appropriate question.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Maybe the problem comes with labelling people either "evil" or "good" . Maybe there are no evil or good people. Just us....people.

 

From the gnostic or mystic perspective the problem is because we are asleep in ignorance to our true nature. We get lost in our concepts and judgements about people and forget the human being who is the same as we are. As soon as people have been reduced to a concept or label it is then easier to do 'bad' things to them.

 

 

For instance......we are the "freedom fighters" in Iraq fighting the "terrorists"

 

But to some people in Iraq we are the "imperialist invaders" and they are the "freedom fighters"

 

 

Same problem shows up in the Bible. We are "God's chosen people" you are the "idol worshippers" and therefore "evil" and need to be driven from "god's land" (lol even the land gets conceptualised!)

 

The god of the old testament is truly monstrous for he postivley encourages this xenophobic attitude.

 

While I disagree with you that the OT God is "truly monstrous" (I'd say these monstrous words were put on his lips, as ministers often do today, as well!), I think the jist of your point is excellent! One's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; one man's saint is another man's sinner.

 

I wrote an essay just last week in which I stated that while the terrorists of 9/11 killed 3000 people, drinking drivers in American have killed about 30-times that number since. While drinking drivers do not intend to be "terroristic," they in fact are. Does it matter if one's loved one dies being flown into a building with "pilots" shouting "God is great!" or by being hit by a "driver" living out the dictum that "Budweiser is king!"

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Current christian you seem to be a rare example of a christian who actually uses his own mind, and powers of discernment when approaching the bible. Welcome. Have you read any of the gnostic gospels?

 

 

 

Coming from a mystic persuasion as I do I can now read the New Testament (particularly the gospels) with fresh eyes. When I first came away from fundamentalism I couldn,t even stand to look at one! Being a gay man myself I found only pain in christianity and let it go.

 

Open minded is another christian on this site that I have great respect for. You may come across her eventually.

 

I think if you try to remove the monstrous bits of Jehovah's character and keep the good bits there would hardly be anything left of him! Many of the gnostic christians were just as embarrased by Jehovah, and went so far as to claim that he was not the Heavenly Father of Jesus.

 

"The God proclaimed by the law and the prophets is not the God of Jesus Christ. The God of the Old Testament is known, but the God of Jesus Christ is the Unknowable"

Cerdo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Yes. Even Jesus instructed others not to refer to him as good as only God is good

 

But that is not possible for God to be "all" good if he orders the killings of so many people. He can not also be all good if he sends people to hell for not believing.

 

2. No. I'm sure Hitler had some good. I've seen pictures of him as a baby and he looks beautiful and peaceful and pleasant. I'm sure he was dearly loved by his mother. Makes you wonder what went wrong, doesn't it!

 

Don't try to dodge the question , you know what I mean. If God is all good that means Hitler is all good. You must be thinking "what am I trying to get at?" If God is all good that means what Hitler did is OK. Because in the end Hitler NEVER killed anyone, he ordered those mass murders. Just like God does in the Bible. But you say Hitler is not good , so neither is God then because they DO THE SAME exact thing.

 

3. No. Funny you mention that one as Psalm 137 is among my favorites -- until it gets to verse 9. I would never defend such a mean-spirited attack. We must remember that that psalm was written by a human being, not by God and I think that that human being who wrote so beautfully until verse 9 went way off on that final verse. He was overcome with his anger and hellbent on revenge. We all occasionally in our anger spout mean-spirited diatribes full of anger, and even violence. Too bad the editors of the Bible didn't leave the fleshly outburst that concludes Psalm 137 on the cutting-room floor of some cave somewhere. Jesus certainly would not approve of such a passage.

 

 

Of course you don't approve it but it is in the Bible. God orders the killings of little children. So if you don't defend that even THOUGH God orders it. Jesus is not the point of this story, I am talking about God not Jesus. For me now I see them as two different things now you have to understand that. So those verses I showed you earlier in the thread you disapprove them. That means God can't be ALL good.

 

 

5. No. And I reject this idea as correct. In those passages in which words are put in God's mouth to the effect that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the second and third generations, it is countered by those verses that claim that God will revisit the righteousness of the fathers upon the children for a thousand generations. What is interesting is that in many cases, the sins of the fathers are revisted on the children. Working with inmates (drug addicts, murderers, rapists, etc.) as I do, I know that most of them had imprisoned fathers and came from homes torn apart by drugs and alcohol. The "sins" are being passed on like a intergenerational curse.

 

 

I think you missed the point of what I was saying but I think you get it, actually. We are still blamed for the sins of Adam and Eve generations ago. We are paying for their sin so it is not fair then. You said so yourself we shouldn't be blamed but we are.

 

6. No. I wouldn't throw a child anywhere. And there is no hellfire.

 

Just because you want to cherry pick or re word a passage does not mean it does not exisist. You are just saying it is a metahpor does not make it dissappear. But I will show you a couple of more verses to clerify the hell fire. Hell is the point of Christianity and you reject it and make it seem not that big of a deal.

 

The "lake of fire" burns with brimstone (sulfur.) (Rev 19:20)

It is a place of torment "day and night forever"(Rev 20:10)

Going there is "the second death" (Rev 20:14)

Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life goes there!!!! (Rev 20:15)

Those who commit bad sins go there, but then so do the cowardly and unbelieving! (Rev 21:8)

 

Matt 5:22 (NASB) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty [enough to go] into the fiery hell.

Matt 5:29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matt 18:8 "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell.

Matt 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Matt 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?

Mark 9:43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,

Mark 9:45 "And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell...47 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell,

Luke 12:4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

James 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the [very] world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of [our] life, and is set on fire by hell.

Hell is fiery (Mt 5:22)

The fire is "eternal" and it is "hell". It is so bad that it would be better to cut off a part of your body to avoid going there. (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9; Mk 9:43-48) Does that sound like "the grave" to you?

Hell is for the soul as well as the body. (Mt 10:28)

Some people are sentenced to hell (Mt 23:33)

They are then cast into hell. (Mk 9:45,47)

Those who only kill the body do not cast anyone into hell; they merely cast someone into their grave. Only the Lord has the authority to cast a person into hell. (Luke 12:4)

 

The hellfire does exsist in the Bible I have more than enough verses to back that up. You can't say it is all a metaphor.

 

 

7. Good question. I'll say this. Men and women have children all the time, knowing all the risks -- knowing that their children might be born with problems; knowing that their child might die in a car accident at age 16; knowing that anything and everything could happen to their child; even knowing that the child likely will have their hearts broken many times and weep at their parents' funerals, and die themselves, too. Yet, yet, yet, the desire to procreate is insatiable. So, too, with God. While God may have known the outcome (we don't know what God knows) of this experiment, his desire to bless with the gift of life overcame any trepidation about the pain that would ensue. And it is highly likely that either we all had a choice about coming here or one day will be glad we did.

 

No there is a difference to that you are treating God as in mans image right now. The difference to that analogy is that GOD IS ALL POWERFUL AND ALL KNOWING. So basically God has lost his powers now. If that is true what you said God is not all powerful then. Then he is not absolute like you make him out to be.

 

 

 

8. That would be hard to do from the biblical text, but I know that Jesus is quoted as saying that satan ("the thief") comes only to steal, kill and destroy and there are many stories of demons tormenting many who were healed by Jesus. It is possible, in my view, that Hitler was a demoniac.

 

God does worse than Satan in the Bible. I can't recall anytime Satan actually ordered the death of someone such as men, children, woman.

 

 

 

Now, I have a question for you: If you don't believe the Bible is true, if you don't believe it contains any real history, why do you use it to accuse God? Is it possible to separate God from the Bible? Why allow what you believe are screwed-up Christians (and there are many of them!) to besmirch God with their trashy book? Why not separate the two? I find it interesting that a book that is altogether denied and deemed myth and fairy tale is used in many posts as though it were admissible as evidence for the truth about God? I think we can use it to ascertain a glimpse at least of God's nature, but if one denies it any such relevance, why use it to accuse God? Not desiring to be argumentative, just curious about this point.

 

 

:Hmm: You know what is a vary good question and I will try to not be sarcastic. The Bible is suppose to BE THE WORD OF GOD. A perfect book , A HOLY BOOK. Inspired by God but yet all I see as a guide about God. However that guide and book that has to be so maginifigant is flawed do you even realize that Christians hijacked the Jewish religion. The word kill is used 532 times in the book. I am always told God is loving and God is good and he is all powerful. Look in the vary book that this WHOLE THING IS BASED OFF OF THOUGH. God is a murdering lunatic who is just as bad as Adolf Hitler.

 

Seperate the two then you are just doing the big no no of Christianity making God a lovable puppy. No take out all the death and murdering and make him the good guy (in which he is presented) You are creating God in your own image in HOW YOU WANT HIM TO BE. Totally overlooking the whole point of this. Of course you don't want God how he really is so all you have to do is cherry pick what YOU WANT TO HEAR. ( Like every Christian).

 

So make the Bible irrelevant and you can do anyting and make God any way you want him to be. Good or bad , use it for your advantage over everyone. You cannot seperate the two because "God" would not have no meaning without the vary book EVERYONE IS BASING their belifs out of.

 

The reason I am using the Bible is to just show how absurb the logic is for following it and what Christianity is supporting that they choose to ignore. It shows the flaws surrounding the cult. I am showing that God is not all loving,powerful, a puppy dog like you appear to make him out to be. I am using the Bible to show it is inaccuarate has contradictions and God cannot be what he says he is the Bible because everything conflicts with each other.

 

The number one thing that makes an atheist faster is actually reading the Bible and knowing what it supports. What we were being told is not always correct so we dig into the main source the main problem. Christianity won't exisist without the Bible. If it does not exisist Christianity doesn't exisist. It is also like Jesus is irrelavent without sin. You can't be missing one or the system does not work. At church I recall always hearing the terms "word of God, perfect book. and all that crap. However how many Christians actually READ THE BIBLE I say 10-20% while the rest are just mindless sheep following the words of the pastors.

 

No God does not exist like I said earlier watch the news and you will see the crap happening. A all good loving God would not allow two jetliners crash in the word trade center, prayers unanswered, the religion he is based off of get so corrupted over time. he would not allow the crusades (well maybe he would). Hurricane Katrina people begged and prayed and the prayers unanswered. No there is no God but for the sake of the argument we always use the Bible. You are cherry picking veres and trying to avoid them in the context.

 

You said you are gay how do you feel people in your own religion HATE YOU? They want you to have no rights and whatnot what do you say too that? Your own God wants you slaughtered.

 

'If a man lies with a man, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

- Leviticus 20:13

 

How do you worship something like that and call it good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to play Devil's advocate for a moment. (:

 

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that no religion, sect or cult has it 100% right. Let's further agree that men wrote the various works cobbled together by the Council of Nicea into a single Book, and that none of the writers featured in that book got it 100% right, none of the translators got it 100% right, and none of the scribes who laboriously copied the text through the Dark Ages got it 100% right.

 

Given all of that as a premise, is there any evidence that all of those men got it 100% wrong?

 

Suppose some of it is right, and some of it is nonsense or made-up stuff: How could anyone know the difference? But not knowing the difference doesn't lead to the conclusion that none of it is right, does it? And if that's a true statement, then I submit that picking and choosing those parts of the Bible that ring true for you is a perfectly rational approach to take.

 

 

Rob

Absolutely! I agree 100% :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lost of stuff in Leviticus that is really strange and, as you know, non-biding on those in Christ.

Well "non-binding" I guess really depends on your interpretation. There are those who believe that god's laws are eternal and therefore hold just as much weight today as they did back then, and to wave them away is simply giving yourself a license to sin at Jesus' expense.

 

Anyway being a gay person myself, I could not simply make those verses go away. Even if they were non-binding as you say, the fact that they were ever said in the first place makes me pretty nauseated, especially if god himself said them, which I believed he did at the time. Although the solution for me wasn't to ignore them, the solution was to critically examine the source. Today I don't know how I could have ever taken the Bible seriously in the first place, not to mention actually believe that these have any connection at all to any "god". IMO, "god" and religion are just cultural phenomenas, that have come and gone since the beginning of time. And there's no reason for me to think that Christianity is any different....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a little note to Amethyst..

 

People have seen white before. :)

 

But they haven't seen hell before, have they? So how can they say it exists if they can't even agree on an interpretation of the doctrine? Hell cannot logically exist. And if the hell doctrine isn't true, then chances are pretty good the rest of it isn't true, either.

It matters what one understands hell to be. If it is a place that is in the middle of the earth, I would say no, it can't logically exist. If it is to be understood as a place of emotional suffering which comes from your actions or other's actions, then yes it does exist logically and can be shown to affect people in everyday life.

 

As far as the rest of it being true, this is also not an either or situation. Forget the claims made by people that claim it as being 100% True (as in the Absolute Truth). It can't be. But just because it's not 100% true doesn't mean that it is 100% false. There are many "truths" in there, but if one is looking for something that is "Absolutely" true, then it is not in there.

 

You have to first dismiss is as the actual word of God in order to see what truths it does contain, because if you still hold it as being the literal word of God or it's not, then you are still giving it "Absolute Truth" status.

 

Antlerman says it best (as usual) in a previous post of his:

 

These are all ways of telling a core message of the Christian faith. The story of Jesus is a vehicle for that message. The problem is not in its creation, but in its interpretation today. Those who take these as actual, hard, factual historical accounting, rather that a literary vehicle are putting themselves into the position of defending that approach by using the naive apologetics the likes of Josh McDowell's "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" framed argument. There are many, many more possible explanations for it beyond "truth or lie".

 

I would have to agree with Antlerman that there are many more explanations besides truth or lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wrong.

 

Why would a "blaze of glory" matter? Millions of Xians have asked to see Jebus, I'm sure - including all of the ex-xians here. He should just get his ass down here and start answering those prayers - unless he doesn't exist.

 

Why only 1000 of the terminally ill? That would be great, but why not all at once?

 

And I'd still call him an asshole for damning those who simply choose to believe and live otherwise. Jebus has no right torturing people for choosing a different religion or lifestyle.

 

I think most skeptics would chew up your question and spit it back out - like I just did.

 

Well if that is so, we've established that proof wouldn't make any difference. Is that fair to say?

 

I should probably save the link to your post here so folks can refer to it the next time they declare all he has to do is prove he exists. I don't think so. It is my position that proof would make no difference to their choice. It's a matter of the heart and will in most cases, or perhaps a moral judgement. Your post is pretty good evidence that is true, don't you think?

 

Rad

Although I understand what you are saying, I have to jump in with a little defense here. It being a matter of the heart is essentially the problem here. Many have decided to reject what Jesus said based on their understanding of the gospels. They find that what he said goes against the very nature of their heart. Their hearts see Jesus as damning people that don't believe as he did and everyone else that falls outside that religion. I don't agree with this understanding, because he tried to get the Jews themselves to see the error of their ways in understanding their own religion. He didn't want a religion built around him, IMO. Anyway, if their heart is calling cruelty when they see it, don't you think that is what Jesus would have wanted even if it was based on the literal writings and mis-understandings that were promoted? I don't think Jesus would have agreed with fundamentalists either.

 

So, I would say that they are more "Christ-like" than those that adhere to such mis-understandings and literalism, wouldn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope and work together for a day in which no one suffers, no one is sick or in pain, and no innocent ones dies. That's the future I hope for, so I pray "thy kingdom come" and try to live in such a way as to reduce the power of evil.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Here arrises another problem when things are taken literally. Many people that take the bible literally, Christians and ex-christians, will see this as some kind of action to be taken by God. God will bring his kingdom to earth. I don't think this is what is meant by that at all. I understand it to mean that if we (humans) work towards understanding that this 'kingdom' will come about naturally. It is not something that God will just poof into reality. People have this power when they recognize what happens when people take the time to understand other people. It divides barriers and crumbles dogmaticism. This is what I get from Jesus' message, "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably had too much in that post to actually respond to jot by jot and tittle by tittle. Let me say this, instead.

 

The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. There is a distinct difference and one we'd be wise to understand.

 

Just because something is in the Bible does not mean 1) that it's true; 2) that it actually happened; 3) that God commissioned it; 4) that God approves. Pslam 137, for example, is not at all an example of God saying to dash babies against a stone. The man who wrote Psalm 137 is speaking for himself. And he does so beautifully, inspirationally -- until that particular last scripture.

 

God is up there in his heaven, and all is not well on this earth. Men and women reach out to the Energy. They write stories and letters about their experiences. These stories and letters get collected. The collection is deemed holy, perfect, inerrant, etc., etc. The collection is worshiped. That's a serious form of idolatry, in my view. While we are shown God more fully in Jesus and we learn of him in the gospels, as I see it, even post-Jesus we "see through a glass darkly." There is much to learn. We know so little, really, so very little.

 

But I am certain God is no Hitler. God is no bully. God is no demon. God is no mass murderer. God is love and love is from God. We exist, I believe, because God gave life to our species and endowed us with intellect, reason, free-will, and faith. I thank the Source for the gift of life.

 

Do the pronouncements of Jerry Falwell on homosexuality (and many other matters) bother me, a gay person? Yes. Emphatically, yes. But so do Howard Stern and Homer Simpson (sometimes). Why would I walk away from Jesus because of what is done in his name by Jerry Falwell? For me, Jesus has the words of eternal life; to whom would I go? Jesus has offered abundant life here and now and eternal life in the not-here and not-now. I have accepted his gift.

 

Wishing you, Ramen666, and me, and all here on this forum, the best, always.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to separate God from the Bible? Why allow what you believe are screwed-up Christians (and there are many of them!) to besmirch God with their trashy book? Why not separate the two? I find it interesting that a book that is altogether denied and deemed myth and fairy tale is used in many posts as though it were admissible as evidence for the truth about God? I think we can use it to ascertain a glimpse at least of God's nature, but if one denies it any such relevance, why use it to accuse God? Not desiring to be argumentative, just curious about this point.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Because for them (myself too at one time) believed the bible to be the very word of God. And many of us understood that God was what the bible said God to be. It is hard to understand that God doesn't belong to a certain religion when what you have been taught is that all other's understandings are false leading them to worship false gods. I know it was a moment I will never forget when I realized that God doesn't belong to a description or book. A way to experience God can be found in the pages of many books, but God is not in the description.

 

It's something that you would have to experience to understand. Many here reject God when they reject the bible because of the mindset they believed. I did too at first. I kept looking for God in the religions of the world. I thought that God belonged to someone's description. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope and work together for a day in which no one suffers, no one is sick or in pain, and no innocent ones dies. That's the future I hope for, so I pray "thy kingdom come" and try to live in such a way as to reduce the power of evil.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Here arrises another problem when things are taken literally. Many people that take the bible literally, Christians and ex-christians, will see this as some kind of action to be taken by God. God will bring his kingdom to earth. I don't think this is what is meant by that at all. I understand it to mean that if we (humans) work towards understanding that this 'kingdom' will come about naturally. It is not something that God will just poof into reality. People have this power when they recognize what happens when people take the time to understand other people. It divides barriers and crumbles dogmaticism. This is what I get from Jesus' message, "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

 

That's a good point, notblindedbytheblight. Interesting how the "kingdom" is within us, among us, outside of us. It's much too big for any of us to claim to have a full understanding of. But if the kingdom means the end of suffering, pain, sickness, death, I say with John, "come quickly, Lord Jesus" (whether that is literal or metaphorical).

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something is in the Bible does not mean 1) that it's true; 2) that it actually happened; 3) that God commissioned it; 4) that God approves. Pslam 137, for example, is not at all an example of God saying to dash babies against a stone. The man who wrote Psalm 137 is speaking for himself. And he does so beautifully, inspirationally -- until that particular last scripture.

 

God is up there in his heaven, and all is not well on this earth. Men and women reach out to the Energy. They write stories and letters about their experiences. These stories and letters get collected. The collection is deemed holy, perfect, inerrant, etc., etc. The collection is worshiped. That's a serious form of idolatry, in my view. While we are shown God more fully in Jesus and we learn of him in the gospels, as I see it, even post-Jesus we "see through a glass darkly." There is much to learn. We know so little, really, so very little.

If you were the representation of Christianity, I would probably still be a Christian...well with a few changes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably had too much in that post to actually respond to jot by jot and tittle by tittle. Let me say this, instead.

 

The Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus is the Word of God. There is a distinct difference and one we'd be wise to understand.

 

Just because something is in the Bible does not mean 1) that it's true; 2) that it actually happened; 3) that God commissioned it; 4) that God approves. Pslam 137, for example, is not at all an example of God saying to dash babies against a stone. The man who wrote Psalm 137 is speaking for himself. And he does so beautifully, inspirationally -- until that particular last scripture.

 

God is up there in his heaven, and all is not well on this earth. Men and women reach out to the Energy. They write stories and letters about their experiences. These stories and letters get collected. The collection is deemed holy, perfect, inerrant, etc., etc. The collection is worshiped. That's a serious form of idolatry, in my view. While we are shown God more fully in Jesus and we learn of him in the gospels, as I see it, even post-Jesus we "see through a glass darkly." There is much to learn. We know so little, really, so very little.

 

But I am certain God is no Hitler. God is no bully. God is no demon. God is no mass murderer. God is love and love is from God. We exist, I believe, because God gave life to our species and endowed us with intellect, reason, free-will, and faith. I thank the Source for the gift of life.

 

Do the pronouncements of Jerry Falwell on homosexuality (and many other matters) bother me, a gay person? Yes. Emphatically, yes. But so do Howard Stern and Homer Simpson (sometimes). Why would I walk away from Jesus because of what is done in his name by Jerry Falwell? For me, Jesus has the words of eternal life; to whom would I go? Jesus has offered abundant life here and now and eternal life in the not-here and not-now. I have accepted his gift.

 

Wishing you, Ramen666, and me, and all here on this forum, the best, always.

 

 

This was the response to my post/

 

Why do we keep bringing up Jesus?You KEEP saying Jesus this and Jesus that. Jesus may in fact been an important person in history (since he does appear in the Quran) But I am not talking about Jesus. He is not the point of the argument.

 

Lets look at somethings

 

1. Jesus was A MAN

2. God clearly states don't worship anyone accept him.

3. Jesus IS NOT the Messiah of the Jews ( I thought you of figyred out that part of the story)

4. The Torah WAS FIRST before the Bible

5. The Jews have a different religion than Christianity.

6. According to Christianity you have to believe in Jesus????? to go to heaven. That is believing in a MAN.

 

IT IS NOT A GIFT! If it was a gift Jesus gaves us SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE IN HELL!

That is like gangsters of thugs holding a gun to your head it is a gift they let you live. That is a stupid concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IT IS NOT A GIFT! If it was a gift Jesus gaves us SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE IN HELL!

That is like gangsters of thugs holding a gun to your head it is a gift they let you live. That is a stupid concept.

 

I'm sorry, Ramen666, but for me it is a gift, and -- as you know -- I don't think anyone is in hellfire. We simply see these things differently. And that's okay!

 

Teaching math the other day, I said to my students as I have said to them many times, "While there is only one right answer in mathematics, there are many ways to get to that one answer." At that point, I drew a mountain. I wrote "Correct Answer" at the peak, then demonstrated the many, many ways to reach the "truth." There are many ways and, for me, all of them are Christ -- even if the name Christ is never used.

 

That's just me, Ramen666. I've been on the earth almost 42 years; I've always been interested in religion; I "came to Jesus" (I'd never put it that way these days) at age 16. All my years of thinking about this and studying this and praying about this, and here's where I'm at.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.