Stupid Christians Who Say There's No Excuse To Not Believe

[AKR]

motherfuckin bitches, i can't stand these fucking ass hats. i'm so sick of the retards that tell me there's no excuse for not believe in their god, and i'm going to hell. i hate how they say i'm DENYING their god on purpose, and that there's actually PROOF of god in nature. what the fuck, you ass hats? i posted this in another forum:

 

"and you think you can look at nature and say, "oh, yeah, that's the christian god that made that." that's the most retarded thing i've ever heard. i can understand if you think that maybe SOME sort of god made it, but how do you look at nature and conclude that it was a god who spoke to moses, led the jews around, came down as jesus, died on a cross, and arose 3 days later and ascended to heaven. tell me, bud, how the f*ck do you get that from just looking at nature? you don't. you can't, and you're insane if you think you can."

 

these people make me sick, because they're so full of themselves; they're so arrogant and they don't even use their rotting brain to figure out that you cannot just know god exists from looking at a fucking tree, or a lawn, and you cannot really believe that a billion people CHOOSE to go to hell. who the fuck follows another religion or doesn't follow any and is like, "well, shit i know i'm going to hell for doing this, but who cares!"

 

this type of christian should be locked in the pits of national park outhouses across the country, and left to drown in the feces of all who enter.

 

[D Laurier]

Its the Believing, not the NOT believing that requires excuses

[godlessgrrl]

I class that kind of insistence along with the same folks who claim that "you really do believe, you just don't know it". The statement says more about their insecurities and beliefs than it does about you, and more about the depths of denial they will dive to in order to protect their belief system from assault.

 

I can remember when I was a Xian that I was actually amazed that anybody could not believe. It was just not in my headspace that disbelief was even possible. Disbelief was a threat, plus it didn't make sense to me at the time: why couldn't everybody see and understand how wonderful Jeebus was?

 

So it's denial, I think, and sometimes that sort of puzzlement is involved too.

 

I love the word "asshat", btw. It's right up there with "fuckwad" and my personal favorite, "fucktard."

[R. S. Martin]

I love this topic. For nearly half a century I did my best to see god in all those things. After trying long enough and hard enough and cutting some toxic people out of my life, I did see god. Actually, it was nature that calmed me when everything in life went wrong. I believed nature was God's handiwork. At least I got a feeling that I understood should be associated with god and the spiritual. But I did not see jesus.

 

I used to just believe in Jesus because, well, why not? He was supposed to have been a human with a written history. It was this invisible god who never did things for me like other people professed he did for them that I had trouble with. If things went my way I could always explain it. It was the things in my life that went wrong (which was most things so long as I listened to others) that I wanted explained.

 

When I shifted gears and focused on making me happy (as opposed to everyone else) things finally started going right for me. But it was my doing--every last thing--that changed the situation. *I* took the risks. *I* stopped listening. *I* found my way. It was even ME and ONLY ME who provided the strength to do these impossible things. At the time I trusted it was god's strength and wisdom. That was the biggest hurdle to get over when I wanted to stop believing in god.

 

Put another way, I wanted to be honest about my life-long disbelief. It took some shifting of thoughts in the upper story before I could cope with it. It was the christians themselves who pushed me to it. I've told the story elsewhere but briefly:

 

My optomotrist made it his business to find out what I believed. At the moment I had plans to meet with a Pagan in a few days. Because he pushed and pressured me so hard I finally told him about this. That's when the evangelizing started. Several weeks later I shared this with my sister, as I shared many things. She got all upset and told me not to talk about this kind of thing so close to bedtime. I didn't really know what I did wrong until several days later. I thought her problem was with my view of God. I figured out a way to explain that I believed would make sense to her. I was wrong. She understood that I did not believe in god and that was that.

 

That was a good three months ago. Tonight when I got home from attending a Christmas Eve service (a story all its own) there was a message on my telephone from her. It sounded like old times so I think she has finally come to terms with it.

 

I met with the pagan as planned (back in August or whenever) and it wasn't quite right for me. About the same time I found this site. It helped me "come out" as an unbeliever. If I had to have a religion, at this point in my life it would be either Christianity (because I am familiar with it) or paganism because it resonates with me.

 

The most natural thing for me is to just accept reality as I experience it and not to worry about a mysterious god or creator behind all of it. SO--they say there is no excuse NOT to believe?!?!?! Please tell me, what excuse is there for me to believe? I mean, as a little child before my mom told me about god and jesus I did not need them. Jesus never did for me what he supposedly did for others.

 

As for salvation from hell--I was taught that sin is intentionally doing what we know is wrong. I, for one, never did that. So far as I could figure out, nobody else did, either. Thus, there was no sin to be atoned for or saved from or whatever it is that jesus is supposed to have done. On top of all that, the plan of salvation simply does not work. Not logically or philosophically or any other way.

 

The plan of salvation works only if you choose to believe illogical stuff--such as that a dead body (Jesus') could in some way benefit human souls. Philosophically (and I knew this instinctively as a child) bodies are on a lower level of reality than souls or spirits. Thus, bodies could contain a soul or spirit, but it took a spirit to breath life into the body. Therefore, spirit is higher than body.

 

No matter how many crosses with crucified men stood on Calvery on Good Friday, not one of those dead bodies had a thing to do with the human soul. All souls had fled those bodies because that is what happens when life is extinguished. If any Christian knew the pain I suffered from trying to believe but being absolutely incapable, perhaps they would stop saying stupid things like "there is no excuse not to believe."

 

There is not one good excuse TO believe. Except to escape hell. And that is totally selfish. If I were god I'd kick out anyone who believed only to escape hell. If they liked me for who I am--providing I also liked them--I might let them live with me. I'd have to think about that for a while. I like living alone.

[R. S. Martin]

motherfuckin bitches, i can't stand these fucking ass hats. i'm so sick of the retards that tell me there's no excuse for not believe in their god, and i'm going to hell.

 

QUESTION: How do you get into these conversations to begin with? I mean, nobody ever talks to me about these things. Sometimes I wish they would so I could give them the "good news." On the other hand, I tend to steer conversation clear of the topic of my personal beliefs simply because I have been punished pretty hard by some people who know.

[Thurisaz]

i posted this in another forum: [...]

 

The greatest victory the jebus death cult ever scored in its entire history: Making the sheeple think there's no alternative to their cult other than atheism. Once you swallow that, "of course" anything that seems to hint at a higher power at all must be evidence of the monster jehoover.

 

who the fuck follows another religion or doesn't follow any and is like, "well, shit i know i'm going to hell for doing this, but who cares!"

 

Aaah, the morontheists' comfort of having the führer think for them... never a need to question, just a minimal IQ equivalent to that of a slice of bread (to regurgibabble what the führer said)...

[Guest Ryft]

As for salvation from hell--I was taught that sin is intentionally doing what we know is wrong. I, for one, never did that. So far as I could figure out, nobody else did, either. Thus, there was no sin to be atoned for or saved from or whatever it is that Jesus is supposed to have done.

There are a number of things that can be said in response to this.

 

First, it would appear that you were taught wrongly because such an idea—"sin is intentionally doing what we know is wrong"—is sufficiently tautological as to be uninformative. Notice something here: the only thing such a statement tells you is that 'wrong' is synonymous with 'sin' without actually telling you what 'wrong' is. A person might respond, "So sin is any wrong-doing? Great, so then what is wrong-doing?" If you ask me what a car is and I tell you that it's an automobile, I haven't answered you. Providing synonyms does not answer the question—obviously.

 

Second, 'salvation' is not about being saved from hell; here, too, you were taught wrongly. As Arthur Pink rightly observed, "The nature of Christ's salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day evangelist, [who] announces a Savior from hell rather than a Savior from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of Fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness." Just like you had said yourself, "If I were God, I'd kick out anyone who believed only to escape hell." Salvation regards atonement; atonement regards our estrangement from God; that estrangement results from sin. Ergo, salvation regards sin, not hell.

 

Third, everyone sins. But this is meaningful only when we have a proper view of sin—which you were not provided with, it seems. If we are told that 'sin' is about 'wrong-doing' but we aren't told what 'wrong-doing' means in this context, it is left up to us to fill that blank in; and if we fill that blank in with a convenient enough concept, it is certainly possible for us to conclude that most people don't sin. But if we stick to a Scriptural definition of sin, we cannot help but notice that everyone in fact does sin.

 

On top of all that, the plan of salvation simply does not work. Not logically or philosophically or any other way. The plan of salvation works only if you choose to believe illogical stuff--such as that a dead body (Jesus') could in some way benefit human souls.

First, this objection might work if soteriology was fully realized in a mere physical corpse hanging from a cross—and a corpse of just anyone. But if the realization of soteriology involves more than this, your objection no longer works. And theologically speaking, 'salvation' begins in eternity and ends in eternity; that is, 'salvation' finds its root in an agreement made by the Son of God before the foundation of the world, and its consummation in the glorification of the redeemed in the eternal age to come. Ergo, 'salvation' transcends those few hours at Calvary; even regarding the incarnate Christ, the atonement and its benefits result from his life, death, and resurrection—not merely his death.

 

Second, there is nothing illogical about it. For example, the idea of "before the foundation of the world" might be contrary to empiricism, but it is not illogical. Logic, it must be remembered, is not defined by empirical data.

 

Not one of those dead bodies [at Calvary] had a thing to do with the human soul.

You may state that not a single one of those bodies at Calvary had a thing to do with the human soul, but such is a product of your speculation, not a product of Scriptural testimony. One is free to speculate unfettered by Scripture, of course, or even contrary to its testimony, but one cannot pretend afterward that such speculations have anything to do with Christianity or what it affirms and teaches. You may speculate however you wish, but you must own your speculation.

[AKR]

QUESTION: How do you get into these conversations to begin with? I mean, nobody ever talks to me about these things. Sometimes I wish they would so I could give them the "good news." On the other hand, I tend to steer conversation clear of the topic of my personal beliefs simply because I have been punished pretty hard by some people who know.

 

i frequent the religion/politics section of a bodybuilding forum. i get into it every day with people ever there. for the most part it's fun, sending the weak ones running away (they'll post and post and post, until you shoot their reasoning so full of holes, they disappear from the thread and pretend it never happened), and sharpening my skills against the more slithery ones.

 

 

oh, and in addition, now some moron has pulled out the "do not test your god" bullshit. it's like the fuckin' wizard of oz. "DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN. DON'T YOU QUESTION OR DOUBT ME!"

[Piprus]

If you'll pardon my candor, RYFT, you sound very much like a pompous windbag with all your talk of "isms" and "ologies". If there is no clear evidence for the existence of god(s), hence the need for salvation from the supposed wrath of such god(s) for our "sins" your discussion is without meaning.

[twincats]

You can always try the pagan's prayer: "Dear Lord Jesus, please deliver me from your followers." This works best face-to-face so that you can walk away. If the other person says anything, tell them "You wouldn't want to interfere with Jesus when he's answering my prayer, would you?"

 

I love the word "asshat", btw. It's right up there with "fuckwad" and my personal favorite, "fucktard."

 

Oh me, too! It just kind of says...it all!

[R. S. Martin]

You may speculate however you wish, but you must own your speculation.

 

I most certainly own my speculation! As would anyone else who came up with such brilliant hypotheses.

 

But if we stick to a Scriptural definition of sin, we cannot help but notice that everyone in fact does sin.

Now if your post is worth the electrons on which it is printed, you will provide the "scriptural definition" for sin. Since you fail to do so I will stick with what I was taught.

 

Ergo, 'salvation' transcends those few hours at Calvary; even regarding the incarnate Christ, the atonement and its benefits result from his life, death, and resurrection—not merely his death.

 

I never said otherwise.

 

First, this objection might work if soteriology was fully realized in a mere physical corpse hanging from a cross—and a corpse of just anyone. But if the realization of soteriology involves more than this, your objection no longer works. And theologically speaking, 'salvation' begins in eternity and ends in eternity; that is, 'salvation' finds its root in an agreement made by the Son of God before the foundation of the world, and its consummation in the glorification of the redeemed in the eternal age to come.

 

Again you dangle a batch of fancy stuff in front of me but you fail to actually say anything.

1. WHAT IS SALVATION?
   
2. What are we saved from?
   
3. How does it work?
   
4. And why?
   

These are the questions christians fail to answer--even worse--they refuse even to touch the issue!

 

That--and that alone--is the reason I am no longer a Christian.

 

I listened to forty years worth of sermons in a desperate attempt to learn what sin is and no one ever told me any better than you do. Hense, I draw my own conclusions. When and if you will read the Bible you will see that there is no consistent behaviour or mental attitude throughout scripture that can be called sin. The very worst crimes in the bible are those committed by god himself, or humans did it by divine decree. Genocide comes to mind. Some people were harshly punished for not carrying out this divine decree. King Saul is one of these.

[R. S. Martin]

QUESTION: How do you get into these conversations to begin with? I mean, nobody ever talks to me about these things. Sometimes I wish they would so I could give them the "good news." On the other hand, I tend to steer conversation clear of the topic of my personal beliefs simply because I have been punished pretty hard by some people who know.

 

i frequent the religion/politics section of a bodybuilding forum. i get into it every day with people ever there. for the most part it's fun, sending the weak ones running away (they'll post and post and post, until you shoot their reasoning so full of holes, they disappear from the thread and pretend it never happened), and sharpening my skills against the more slithery ones.

 

I see. That makes sense.

 

oh, and in addition, now some moron has pulled out the "do not test your god" bullshit. it's like the fuckin' wizard of oz. "DO NOT LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN. DON'T YOU QUESTION OR DOUBT ME!"

 

Are you talking about this windbag above who presumes to tell me my esteemed parents and former church were all wrong but he/she fails to provide a better answer?

 

I'm not testing god; I'm just asking god to at the very least make sense. A god who cannot do that is hardly worth lying for, much less worth dying for.

[NotBlinded]

You may state that not a single one of those bodies at Calvary had a thing to do with the human soul, but such is a product of your speculation, not a product of Scriptural testimony. One is free to speculate unfettered by Scripture, of course, or even contrary to its testimony, but one cannot pretend afterward that such speculations have anything to do with Christianity or what it affirms and teaches. You may speculate however you wish, but you must own your speculation.

Scriptural testimony is speculation whether you understand it correctly or not. If you understand it correctly (if that's possible) and believe it, you are just accepting someone else's speculation as truth.

 

Is there something wrong with speculating upon speculation?

[Llwellyn]

Salvation regards atonement; atonement regards our estrangement from God; that estrangement results from sin. Ergo, salvation regards sin, not hell.

Who is this fuckhole preaching Christian nonsense to us? Does he realize this is an ex-christian subforum not for evangelization? His post count is 1, so maybe he is just a noob. If so, I'll give him some gentle advice: "Eat shit and die mothafucka!"

[Guest Ryft]

(Apparently there is a post limit)

 

PART I

 

If you'll pardon my candor, RYFT, you sound very much like a pompous windbag with all your talk of "isms" and "ologies".

Thanks for sharing your opinion?

 

If there is no clear evidence for the existence of god(s), hence the need for salvation from the supposed wrath of such god(s) for our "sins" your discussion is without meaning.

I have now reviewed RubySera's post three more times, and it still appears that the subject of her post regarded the coherence of theism, not the existence of God (e.g. "I'm just asking God to, at the very least, make sense"). It is possible to assume that God exists for the sake of argument in order to discuss how incoherent theism is, as RubySera demonstrated—or to offer a response to such an argument.

 

I most certainly own my speculation! As would anyone else who came up with such brilliant hypotheses.

I hope you will pardon my error in judgment. It certainly appeared related, in both context and sequence, to your preceding remarks about "illogical stuff" like dead bodies somehow benefiting human souls. I suppose it was merely coincidental. At any rate, it is curious to observe you inserting your own view in a comment about the illogic of the Christian view. That is, the relationship is not immediately obvious. Perhaps you could explain the relevance of your views on Calvary within a comment about the Christian view of it.

 

Now if your post is worth the electrons on which it is printed, you will provide the "scriptural definition" for sin. Since you fail to do so I will stick with what I was taught.

Your conclusion is a tad premature, don't you think? If you want the Scriptural definition, I suppose you will ask for it; and if you ask for it, I suppose you will demonstrate a measure of patience while waiting for me to discover your request and to respond in kind. Obviously you're not going to make the request and also decide I've failed to meet it all in one post. Right?

 

Sin is any act or attitude that is want of conformity unto, or transgresses, the commands or prescriptive will of God, whether willfully (1 John 3:4, Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness) or negligently (James 4:17, Anyone who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins). 1 John 5:17, All unrighteousness is sin (cf. Rom. 7:12; 3:20; 7:7). Examples: 1 Sam. 15:24, Then Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned. I violated Jehovah's command and your instructions. Dan. 9:11, All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you . . . we have sinned against you. James 2:9-10, But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (Gk. panton enochos, i.e. 'is nevertheless a lawbreaker'; see next verse, "For he who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker"). If God commands that we do 'X', and we don't do it, that is sin. If he commands that we do not do 'Y', and we do it, that is sin. This involves our actions (e.g. Do not steal) and our attitudes (e.g. Do not covet) and in many cases both (e.g. Love the Lord your God).

 

What is salvation?

'Salvation' is a term to describe the whole enterprise of man's redemption—the cause, means, and end.

 

What are we saved from?

Sin, and all that is a consequence of it—the enmity between God and man it results in, its corrupting effects and mortal ruin, the condemnation it incurs, etc.

 

How does it work?

This question is too broad, given the manifold nature of 'salvation'. Election, atonement, regeneration, justification, and so forth, all of these elements together constitute 'salvation' but can be addressed individually. To put the matter (far too) simply: Our sins incur a legal debt which justice demands payment of: either Christ satisfies the debt on our behalf or we satisfy the debt ourselves.

 

And why?

Because the debt required gets paid (either by Christ or on our own).

[Guest Ryft]

PART II

 

These are the questions christians fail to answer--even worse--they refuse even to touch the issue!

And this, of course, is patently false: there are volumes of material written on these subjects by thousands of theologians and philosophers throughout the centuries (e.g. John Murray's "Redemption Accomplished and Applied").

 

That--and that alone--is the reason I am no longer a Christian.

If that were true, you would be a Christian upon receiving an answer to these questions. I guess we will find out.

 

I listened to forty years worth of sermons in a desperate attempt to learn what sin is and no one ever told me any better than you do.

Again, this is a tad premature because no one had asked for the definition of sin, nor had any discussion of it ocurred. However, it is a shameful indictment against the majority of contemporary churches that you could listen to forty years' worth of sermons and not learn what 'sin' is...

 

...but the indictment is accurate and deserved.

 

When and if you will read the Bible you will see that there is no consistent behaviour or mental attitude throughout scripture that can be called sin.

Perhaps that is because God's commands are numerous and cover many spheres of man's life? But essentially there is one fundamental behavior or attitude throughout Scripture that is called 'sin': disobeying God's commands.

 

The very worst crimes in the bible are those committed by god himself, or humans did it by divine decree. Genocide comes to mind. Some people were harshly punished for not carrying out this divine decree. King Saul is one of these.

If by "crime" you mean 'sin' then it is impossible for God to be guilty of committing any at all. 'Murder' is not a sin because it's an offense against man; it's a sin because it's an offense against God, in virtue of disobeying his command*. The reason why "some people were harshly punished" is precisely because they did not carry out God's commands—that's the very definition of 'sin'. (Your line of reasoning is potentially heading toward Euthyphro's dilemma. However, it's a dilemma only for those who have explored the issue but superficially; when Euthyphro's dilemma is examined closely, it's disovered that it actually commits a fallacy and is invalid.)

 

* The American justice system is similar: although 'murder' is a crime, as violating our government's laws, the President can nevertheless command people to take the lives of others without their becoming guilty of murder (e.g. soldiers and executioners). The only difference is that our laws regard legality while God's laws regard morality; i.e. it is not necessarily immoral to break our government's laws, but breaking God's laws is necessarily (i.e. by definition) immoral.

 

I'm not testing god; I'm just asking god to at the very least make sense. A god who cannot do that is hardly worth lying for, much less worth dying for.

I am certainly willing to explain how these things do make sense, wherever I am able—and since I have devoted many years to the study of both philosophy and theology, there are a number of areas I am able to address.

 

Scriptural testimony is speculation whether you understand it correctly or not. If you understand it correctly (if that's possible) and believe it, you are just accepting someone else's speculation as truth. Is there something wrong with speculating upon speculation?

Under this view, everything is 'speculation'. Under this view, the things that Jesus said were a product of his speculations, the things his apostles preached and wrote down were a product of their speculations, our interpretation of what they said and wrote is a product of our speculations—even our experiences in the everyday world is a product of our speculations. However, if everything is 'speculation', then calling something 'speculation' is no longer any kind of criticism. And if it's not a criticism, exactly what am I supposed to do with it? (Furthermore, under this view both truth and knowledge are denied any correspondence with reality, since 'reality' is nothing more than the product of our speculations; i.e. truth and knowledge become mere biographical information.)

 

Who is this fuckhole preaching Christian nonsense to us? Does he realize this is an ex-christian subforum not for evangelization? His post count is 1, so maybe he is just a noob. If so, I'll give him some gentle advice: "Eat shit and die mothafucka!"

Thank you for this tremendous display of rational thinking. That was quite intellectually compelling... </sarcasm>.

 

By the way, the Terms & Rules you had agreed to when you registered said, in part: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law" (emphasis added).