Jump to content

Kick-starting Autonomous Thinking In Christians


Recommended Posts

That could very well be.

 

I feel sorry for such delusional people. They have entrenched their minds into a nest of dogma worms and they can't get out.

 

If he causes to much problem, he'll be booted out. He will feel the blessing of my shoe, and the judgement of his ass. "Vengeance is mine, says Hans."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply
That could very well be.

 

I feel sorry for such delusional people. They have entrenched their minds into a nest of dogma worms and they can't get out.

 

If he causes to much problem, he'll be booted out. He will feel the blessing of my shoe, and the judgement of his ass. "Vengeance is mine, says Hans."

 

 

:HaHa: Works for me. Keep him around a while though. If he is indeed the same, he will make better arguments for atheism than any atheist could dream up. The core of his belief, that God's punishment is to torment and destroy is one of the truly more disgusting takes on Christianity I've seen. And...he can back it up with scripture. He does an excellent portrayal of a monster god. I still refer people who claim a loving God to Quick and Ceridwen's posts on CF. (Ceridwen, I suspect, is a Quick sock puppet on CF.) It saves me a lot of argument about the so-called loving nature of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sock puppet" ... that's funny. First time I saw it in the link you provided.

 

If he starts doing sock puppet theater here, I'll pop his eye sockets instead. Before I expediate his departure of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

 

You are so right about this.

 

Consider the situation when someone is being accused of a crime. If the burden of proof was on the person who denies or questions the assertion would make everyone guilty until proven innocent.

 

The burden of proof however is quite rightly placed on the person who makes the assertion. They need evidence and they need to prove their case in court. That is why people are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Anything is possible. But not everything can be backed up with a convincing argument (consisting of evidence and logic). In other words, not everything is probable and the burden of proof lies with the person who is making an unlikely statement to back it up and reason as to why it is likely rather than unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EB and A-man,

 

You got me to realize that this Quicky is stuck in a medieval idea of justice.

 

In the older systems, a suspect was pretty much guilty until proven innocent. Just by reading about the witch trials you can see that any argument to prove a persons innocents was rejected and considered a lie and in the end was used as a proof for guilt instead.

 

Like:

 

Witness - but she wasn't there, she was with me

 

Prosecutor - it wasn't her. It was a charm, a demon spirit, looking like her, but the real her was flying on a broom to meet the other witches.

 

And secondly this notion that a Judge is proving the guilt of someone, in the comparison with God being the judge etc, that's how it used to be, but nowdays we have a jury of 12 members. The reason this was added to the judicial system was because of corrupt judges and the errors in the system. Too many innocent got convicted because of a personal opinion by the judge. The system changed to be that we are tried by our *peers*, by our neighbors, friends, family etc. The accused is really tried by the people that can see the situation from the same point of view as the accused, and not by a external agent, removed from reality. The judge then will execute the judgment based on the conviction from the jury. He/She can still override the jury's decision, but that's when the judge consider the jury to be too far off from what is fair and just.

 

Thirdly, the punishment is at level with the crime (or at least is supposed to be). A small crime renders a small punishment, and a terrible crime renders a large punishment.

 

With the Christian God justice we are not tried by our peers, but by an external and subjective force. God has a bone to pick with humanity, so he's not objective to the case. He created and is guiding the prosecutor too and the defense is weak. He already have rendered the judgment and punishment beforehand, before the trial, so we're guilty until proven innocent, which is completely old fashioned. And really, the only way to get out from this pre-convicted-punishment is to buy stocks into a being that supposedly paid for these crimes. The problem with that is when I hear the analogy of me having a debt and a friend pay my debt for me, then I'm off the hook, is that you can't do that for serious crimes. So which way is it? Are the crimes serious and demand eternal punishment or are they just a small infraction of overdue bills?

Link to post
Share on other sites
In short, the bible is a written record and guide for us to know God. Don’t linger on any one phrase or version. The truth is in your heart.

Yes, now can you see that all religion's books are just guides to know God also? If you don't linger on any one phrase or mistake the pointers for God, you would also understand this truth that is in your heart. You must first stop taking the story for what the story is trying to convey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we are created in God's image; jealous, angry, violent and willing to take revenge. What man isn't the same?

You'll have it if you turn it around: Yes, God is created in man's image; jealous, angry, violent and willing to take revenge. That sounds more realistic doesn't it?

 

If you take the myth literally, you have created an idol out of the minds of humans and claimed this to be God. Humans know nothing else besides being human. Knowing this, why is hard for you to understand that God would reflect the minds of humans but so easy to think you can comprehend something you have no way of understanding?

 

"If horses had Gods, they would look like horses." Xenophanes

 

Not true. God is a jealous God, etc. Read scripture and you’ll see.

 

Myth? I understand God – those that can’t – well, they must have only human understanding. Care to prove God isn’t true? You can’t. In all your wildest fantasies, the probability remains. Can you do away with probability?

I have read scripture Quick, but I no longer mistake what it is saying by taking it literally. You also only have human understanding if you cannot see past what the myth denotes to what it connotes. It's denotation is not what is intended. If you can't understand that, you wind up with an image in your mind (idol) that is not true.

 

I never said God isn't real. You are the one that is ascribing human qualities to a mystery that no one has ever seen.

 

What happens when you have a spiritual experience? How do you describe it? Do you use metaphors? Maybe you might say something like, I saw a dragon that came and lit my life on fire. Would you expect people to believe that God is a dragon?

 

Can you prove to me that your idol and not someone else's idol is God? Or can you admit that people only write about their own experiences of God?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You hinted in an earlier post that the Bible contains inconsistencies and it only gives you direction to understanding god, then you must understand that the Bible is not to be taken literal and it is a symbolic book with symbolic language to describe a higher level of experience, and not necessarily a particular god, but rather how you personally can experience "god" (regardless if god exists or not). The purpose of religion is to give you religious experience. LSD give you an experience too, but it doesn't make the hallucinations true just because you experience them.

Amen, oh follower of the all-adorable Cute Bunny! :17:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to just hide behind a tuff guy avatar and ejaculate nonsense as some sort of reasonable communication – forget it. Little boys like you are a dime a dozen on the street. What sets you apart?

 

There goes BOOM another irony meter.

:HaHa: I noticed that and was going to say something, but I knew you would address it.

 

I think it is little boys that need a daddy for their entire life to tell them how to live in his house, don't you? Most men move out into the world on their own taking the lessons their fathers (or mothers) taught them with them. They don't continually look to them for discipline their entire life. But, I guess many boys (and girls) never outgrow the need to have a parent figure telling them what is right and what is wrong. Sad...

Link to post
Share on other sites
He "friend" of yours?

 

Hardly. I suspect that he's a poster I used to see with some frequency on Christian forums. Here's a sample of the nonsense that the "Quick" on CF spouted:

 

http://www.christianforums.com/t3132542-go...-vengeance.html

 

If the Quick here is indeed the same as the Quick on CF, we will all soon be treated to more examples of his hate-filled theology.

HA! I love that thread! Telephone is a wonderful comedian. :lmao:

 

I didn't realize that they were that tolerant of non-believers over there. Even most of the Chrsitians seem to disagree with "Quick". Too funny...

Link to post
Share on other sites
He "friend" of yours?

 

Hardly. I suspect that he's a poster I used to see with some frequency on Christian forums. Here's a sample of the nonsense that the "Quick" on CF spouted:

 

http://www.christianforums.com/t3132542-go...-vengeance.html

 

If the Quick here is indeed the same as the Quick on CF, we will all soon be treated to more examples of his hate-filled theology.

HA! I love that thread! Telephone is a wonderful comedian. :lmao:

 

I didn't realize that they were that tolerant of non-believers over there. Even most of the Chrsitians seem to disagree with "Quick". Too funny...

It is an amusing read. Someone who finds a sense of satisfaction in the bloodshed of humans under the heal of God. Wow, poor child whoever that quick over there is. Must have beaten routinely by the neighborhood bullies and fantasizes about a final triumph over his enemies.

 

See... everyone can see an image of themselves in the face of God. It's kind of like asked, "Do you believe in human?" Which one, you ask? Same thing with God. Which human face of God? The hurt angry victim child God?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an amusing read. Someone who finds a sense of satisfaction in the bloodshed of humans under the heal of God. Wow, poor child whoever that quick over there is. Must have beaten routinely by the neighborhood bullies and fantasizes about a final triumph over his enemies.

 

See... everyone can see an image of themselves in the face of God. It's kind of like asked, "Do you believe in human?" Which one, you ask? Same thing with God. Which human face of God? The hurt angry victim child God?

I was going to say, yes...it's amazing. But, it's really not that amazing since being human is all a human knows. But, it is very enlightening when you put it that way.

 

It reminds me of my daughter's favorite T-shirt that has all these cartoon faces on it with different moods.

 

I found this and thought it was fitting... :HaHa: It should be telling that God exibits humanity's moods.

face.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

 

So, if you truly feel in your heart that God is Bullshit, why bother talking to people like me?

 

Didn't Paul instruct the followers of Jesus to refrain from "unwholesome" speech? Why do you throw around foul language and foul accusations so consistently? I'm not trying to antagonize you, just curious about what seems to me to be a disconnect between the faith you claim to claim and the way in which you speak and address people on this forum.

 

-CC

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, God created all that exists. God created the ability of free thinking man and spiritual beings to chose to be evil, opposite of what he is. When the bible says he created evil – he created the something that choose to be evil. He didn’t make or design the evil that influences our existence. The choice was made long ago.

Hmm... My interpretation of the previous verses is that God designed the evil, created it and the interpretation of the word used also mean that he casues disasters and such. But it's okay that we differ in opinion there.

 

Good because we obviously do. How does evil become a designed response - something created? God has caused disaster after disaster but is that the same as the evil that exudes from man? When a child lies or kills a frog, is that evil within created and placed within that child by God?

 

You’ll have to provide examples of murder and lie. I’ve not seen them in text. He most definitely encouraged his people to kill and rejoice in the spoils of war. And if you read revelation, that’s the theme. Mine is mine. He is the big kid on the block.

There are examples, but I'm too lazy to look them up, so I'll just tell you how I remember the stories.

 

For instance, in one instance someone did something "sinful" in the camp during the exodus (I think it was there, it could have been a different occasion, like one of the many wars god told them to go on) and god opened up the earth and swallowed hundreds (or maybe it was thousands) of innocent people. That's murder. Or take all the newborn babies in the flood. What henious acts had they manage to do to deserve such a fate? Only a murderer kill innocent because he's emotional instable.

 

We definitely see murder in a different light as well. I suppose sacrifice would be murder in your eyes as well. The victor controls the court and makes the law. You can try God when you defeat him and become the law maker.

 

When it comes to lying, just take the example when YHWH tell Moses that "from now on you will know me by the name of YHWH" and he goes on and tell Moses that not even Abraham knew him by the name of YHWH, but if you go to the stories of Abraham you'll find that Abraham supposedly prayed using the name... (drumroll) YHWH!!! Either god lied about Abraham knowing his name, or god lied to the author who wrote the passage, or the author never heard from god. Take your pick.

 

Lying? A problem with scripture is my best guess. You even hint at that possibility.

 

Well-intentioned men wrote the bible. Yes, there are many inconsistencies within it. Look at all the different versions and you’ll agree. In short, the bible is a written record and guide for us to know God. Don’t linger on any one phrase or version. The truth is in your heart.

Okay, you're not a literalist at least. That's a good thing. That gives you many ways out from the contradictions. (And also ways out of the problems above.)

 

Contradictions or perceived contradictions? There are only contradictions when one picks a version from the numerous available and says that it is the one and only inerrant bible. We both know that isn’t true.

 

So how do you know the Bible is correct when it say "God is good" or that "God doesn't lie" if there are inconsistencies? Do you judge it by your heart? Basically a form of emotional filter? What you feel is right is right, and what you feel is wrong is wrong? What about people that feel to do things that the rest of us consider wrong?

 

I don’t believe the written word is the final authority. Things I know about God can’t be proven or readily explained. I also know I like apple pie. I can’t prove how or why – but I do KNOW I like apple pie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if you truly feel in your heart that God is Bullshit, why bother talking to people like me?

I've asked myself that question many times, and I think the reason (at least my reason) is that I like the challenge and to see what I learn from it. Personally I'm open minded to learn new things, and I refuse to become a fundamentalist of just another kind, so I'm training to discuss these issues. Because I know the time will come when I need to talk to people I meet, and we have to be able to find a common ground instead of fighting. If believers and non-believers can't live in the same place, we'll never have peace. And in my mind, this world is the only world I'll ever live on, so for me it is much more important to save this planet and my life and my loved ones, than it is for any fanatic that want to go to Paradise this moment and take a whole block with him while doing it.

 

One thing you have to understand Quick is that for a non-believer, life is much more precious than death. I don't dwell on thoughts about a fantasy or the implausible concept of an afterlife, when this life is the one I know for sure I need to treasure and protect. From the time I deconverted until now I have learned more about life, and I am more in love in life now than ever, and I see the world as more sacred and needing my help than ever before. Unfortunately it includes that religion is a threat to our existence. And I don't mean the solution is to get rid of religion or believers, because I think that is impossible, but the second best is to make sure we can live together. It has to start at the point of discussion.

 

So we do have common ideas. I’m an ex-christian because I do not find truth in trinitarian christainity. In our few responses to one another, the reason is obvious. However, I do not write off the existence of God because Christianity is false. I reject religion – not God. Life is precious and Ecclesiastes is a good read for those who feel this way. Afterlife to me is not fantasy – it’s the same as what I have now – only without the thought of lingering death. If it does not happen – well it does not happen. What have I lost?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Run!!! He's back!!! :)

 

Good because we obviously do. How does evil become a designed response - something created? God has caused disaster after disaster but is that the same as the evil that exudes from man? When a child lies or kills a frog, is that evil within created and placed within that child by God?

So humans create evil by using free will?

 

If I abuse a kid so he/she becomes deformed, I'm evil, right?

 

If a kid is born deformed, doesn't the Bible claim that God formed it in the womb, but that is not evil?

 

There are examples, but I'm too lazy to look them up, so I'll just tell you how I remember the stories.

 

For instance, in one instance someone did something "sinful" in the camp during the exodus (I think it was there, it could have been a different occasion, like one of the many wars god told them to go on) and god opened up the earth and swallowed hundreds (or maybe it was thousands) of innocent people. That's murder. Or take all the newborn babies in the flood. What henious acts had they manage to do to deserve such a fate? Only a murderer kill innocent because he's emotional instable.

 

We definitely see murder in a different light as well. I suppose sacrifice would be murder in your eyes as well. The victor controls the court and makes the law. You can try God when you defeat him and become the law maker.

I can't see why killing innocent for another person's guilt would not be called murder. They were not willing sacrifices, where they?

 

What is the law from God if the Bible can't be taken at face value or literal?

 

When it comes to lying, just take the example when YHWH tell Moses that "from now on you will know me by the name of YHWH" and he goes on and tell Moses that not even Abraham knew him by the name of YHWH, but if you go to the stories of Abraham you'll find that Abraham supposedly prayed using the name... (drumroll) YHWH!!! Either god lied about Abraham knowing his name, or god lied to the author who wrote the passage, or the author never heard from god. Take your pick.

 

Lying? A problem with scripture is my best guess. You even hint at that possibility.

Well, then the law isn't perfected either, and how can we then follow a law that possibly is flawed?

 

For instance, should you stone an unruly son or not?

 

Okay, you're not a literalist at least. That's a good thing. That gives you many ways out from the contradictions. (And also ways out of the problems above.)

 

Contradictions or perceived contradictions? There are only contradictions when one picks a version from the numerous available and says that it is the one and only inerrant bible. We both know that isn't true.

So what is the explanation to when YHWH tell Moses that Abraham didn't know God by the name of YHWH, while according to Genesis Abraham used the name YHWH? Is there an underlying spiritual meaning to this very obvious contradiction? It sounds like you do think the author made mistakes (Moses according to some), and then again, how do you then know which law is correct or not?

 

If you make the decision of which law is correct by your heart, then why isn't another person's heart just as functional? I don't steal, murder or cheat, and I don't do it from the simple reason that I don't feel like it, don't have a reason to, and I know that if I do I can get into trouble with the law or my wife!

 

I don't believe the written word is the final authority. Things I know about God can't be proven or readily explained. I also know I like apple pie. I can't prove how or why – but I do KNOW I like apple pie.

What I can't understand though is how do you know what is right or wrong? You use the same faculties of your brain as I do to decide what is right or wrong. We're the same and make the same judgments, but I don't need a religion to do it. The only difference is that you believe that you'll get away with the things you think are evil, while I will be punished for the same ones. But I don't believe there is a god that will judge me that way, simple because the “god law” isn't clear. So who can follow it when it isn't obvious?

 

(You like apple pie? Shame on you, that's a deadly sin!!! :HaHa: But it's only "death by chocolate" that really would kill you by the Chocolate God)

Link to post
Share on other sites
So we do have common ideas. I’m an ex-christian because I do not find truth in trinitarian christainity. In our few responses to one another, the reason is obvious. However, I do not write off the existence of God because Christianity is false. I reject religion – not God. Life is precious and Ecclesiastes is a good read for those who feel this way. Afterlife to me is not fantasy – it’s the same as what I have now – only without the thought of lingering death. If it does not happen – well it does not happen. What have I lost?

So, if I understand you right, you're more of a deist or a theist in a sense then? But do you keep some of the Christian theology still?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I didn’t say an invisible God exists. I said the “possibility” of an invisible God exists. You must concur or prove the “possibility” of this God doesn’t exist. You can’t.

Sure, it's possible, but is it probable?

 

I'm open for new "god" ideas, but the Judeo/Christian/Islamic/Philosopher God just doesn't make sense. We can't accept a god because he doesn't make sense. We can't accept a god because we feel like it. You maybe can, and I now I used to be able to, but when the emotions are gone, so is the faith in such a god. Your faith isn't stronger than your strongest doubt. Open one crack and your faith falls.

 

If you imagine your own personal god that is incomprehensible and incompletely inexplainable, that is your choice, but just because there is a possibility that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does exist, doesn't mean there is a strong probability for its existence.

 

I don’t accept a God that doesn’t make sense. God makes perfect sense. As hard as man tries to disprove God with science – he doesn’t. The theory of evolution suggests man evolved from dirt – the bible says the same thing. If we stop looking at the bible as the fundamentalists – things become very clear. Look at the combined wasted intelligence of those who have tried to prove the existence of a three headed god. Look at the evil these men brought on the world. 2000 years down the damn drain and men still fight one another over the being of God. You want to blame this on him? You feel he creates this turmoil, this evil? It ain’t him doing it. It’s man. Man in his wisdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t accept a God that doesn’t make sense. God makes perfect sense. As hard as man tries to disprove God with science – he doesn’t. The theory of evolution suggests man evolved from dirt – the bible says the same thing. If we stop looking at the bible as the fundamentalists – things become very clear. Look at the combined wasted intelligence of those who have tried to prove the existence of a three headed god. Look at the evil these men brought on the world. 2000 years down the damn drain and men still fight one another over the being of God. You want to blame this on him? You feel he creates this turmoil, this evil? It ain’t him doing it. It’s man. Man in his wisdom.

I think some of discussions earlier were based on a misunderstanding from my side. I truly thought you were a Christian, from the way you presented things. :)

 

You heard about the book, "God: the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger? He claims to prove god non-existent through science. (The Judeo/Christian/Muslim/Philosopher God at least)

 

Talking about "evolved from dirt", I been thinking about Ken Hovids favorite argument against Evolution. He say "evolution say we come from a rock!" And most everyone get a bit stunned by that remark, and try to give a full answer of why it isn't quite so. But I think the better response would be to tell him, "but you think we came from dirt, and dirt isn't any different than rocks! So then we actually agree on that point?"

 

When it comes to your argument that Evil comes from Man. Now I understand what you mean. Sure, evil and good comes from man, and in my view even the notion and ideas of god come from man too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"but you think we came from dirt, and dirt isn't any different than rocks! So then we actually agree on that point?"
Exactly the answer I wanted to give!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t accept a God that doesn’t make sense. God makes perfect sense. As hard as man tries to disprove God with science – he doesn’t. The theory of evolution suggests man evolved from dirt – the bible says the same thing. If we stop looking at the bible as the fundamentalists – things become very clear. Look at the combined wasted intelligence of those who have tried to prove the existence of a three headed god. Look at the evil these men brought on the world. 2000 years down the damn drain and men still fight one another over the being of God. You want to blame this on him? You feel he creates this turmoil, this evil? It ain’t him doing it. It’s man. Man in his wisdom.

I think some of discussions earlier were based on a misunderstanding from my side. I truly thought you were a Christian, from the way you presented things. :)

 

You heard about the book, "God: the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger? He claims to prove god non-existent through science. (The Judeo/Christian/Muslim/Philosopher God at least)

 

Talking about "evolved from dirt", I been thinking about Ken Hovids favorite argument against Evolution. He say "evolution say we come from a rock!" And most everyone get a bit stunned by that remark, and try to give a full answer of why it isn't quite so. But I think the better response would be to tell him, "but you think we came from dirt, and dirt isn't any different than rocks! So then we actually agree on that point?"

 

When it comes to your argument that Evil comes from Man. Now I understand what you mean. Sure, evil and good comes from man, and in my view even the notion and ideas of god come from man too.

 

Damn glad to meet you!

 

Now, if the notion of God or a creator comes from man - how does a mere man without any scientific knowledge relate things such as the theory of creation? What about the idea that life is in the blood?

 

The kicker that really gets me is the end times. John described a nuclear detonation in the desert before man even knew bacteria caused illness. Where does this knowledge come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dhampir, another cool thing is that according to Genesis 1: "20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Notice it says that the waters should "bring forth". So according to that verse, God didn't create directly, but told the waters to create the animals... i.e. Evolution. (And it says the same things about plants and land creatures too.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. God is a jealous God, etc. Read scripture and you’ll see.

Yup. The Bible say God is jealous (I think in one of the 10 commandment passages). Isn't jealousy a sin?

 

Myth? I understand God – those that can’t – well, they must have only human understanding. Care to prove God isn’t true? You can’t. In all your wildest fantasies, the probability remains. Can you do away with probability?

Can you trust your instincts based on a possibility?

 

You hinted in an earlier post that the Bible contains inconsistencies and it only gives you direction to understanding god, then you must understand that the Bible is not to be taken literal and it is a symbolic book with symbolic language to describe a higher level of experience, and not necessarily a particular god, but rather how you personally can experience "god" (regardless if god exists or not). The purpose of religion is to give you religious experience. LSD give you an experience too, but it doesn't make the hallucinations true just because you experience them.

 

I don't do religion or acid any more. Neither gives one a dose of reality. God can and does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn glad to meet you!

:HaHa:

 

Now, if the notion of God or a creator comes from man - how does a mere man without any scientific knowledge relate things such as the theory of creation? What about the idea that life is in the blood?

The blood as a symbol for life isn't so difficult to figure out. By pure observation for the early man, they could conclude that bleeding was pretty bad for a person. They went pale and then stopped breathing and then never moved again. And the same for breath. That's where the idea to spirit, ghost etc comes from. They basically believed the essence of a human (or life) is in the breath and/or the blood, based on pure observation (or in a sense scientifc study, limited to the degree of knowledge they had).

 

The kicker that really gets me is the end times. John described a nuclear detonation in the desert before man even knew bacteria caused illness. Where does this knowledge come from?

Dude, I don't know about that. I think that's just your way of re-interpreting a vague story into your own understanding of contemporary knowledge. Those statements are so fuzzy that in 50 years when new technology and weapons exists, many will apply those verses on those times instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So we do have common ideas. I’m an ex-christian because I do not find truth in trinitarian christainity. In our few responses to one another, the reason is obvious. However, I do not write off the existence of God because Christianity is false. I reject religion – not God. Life is precious and Ecclesiastes is a good read for those who feel this way. Afterlife to me is not fantasy – it’s the same as what I have now – only without the thought of lingering death. If it does not happen – well it does not happen. What have I lost?

So, if I understand you right, you're more of a deist or a theist in a sense then? But do you keep some of the Christian theology still?

 

Christianity isn't a total lie. I guess I do hold on to some of it. Luke was a doctor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.