Five questions to ask a Christian

[Merlinfmct87]

This thread is in response to the dozens of "Instant-Quiz Conversion Kits" I have seen sprout up over the internet. Either it's a flash applet asking if you have EVER sinned in you WHOLE LIFE, or it's a cute little web page saying that the misguided atheists don't really understand their own beliefs, or that they need to understand that they were just hurt by da baaad people, not the True Christians.

 

Well... time for the quiz-takers to fire back.

 

Question One: Have you taken a thourough understanding of your own Bible? Many "Christians" are woefully ignorant of their own holy texts and what they say/command, much less the ways it has been used(often times while still being in line with it's teachings) to condone slavery, segregation, rape, witch trials, crusades, inquisitions, I could go on.

 

Question Two: Have you studied the opposition, or are you drawing all your facts from us from the Christian Propaganda machine? Something I come across *very* often is the utter brazenness of which Christians lie and distort the beliefs of others.

 

Examples:

• Wicca is a road that leads straight to Satanism, if it isn't devil-worship in and of itself.
  
• Evolution assumes that our great-great-great grandfathers were slime and bacteria.
  
• Atheists want to keep the Bible out of the science room because they are afraid that it will stand up favorably against evolution(ism).
  
• Scientists pull the dates on fossil bones out of a hat, because carbon dating cannot be verified and is inherently unreliable.
  

I'm not even going to bother refuting this. It's been done so many times it's sick.

 

Question Three: Can you respect you opponent? Can you accept that he may have insights into the Bible you do not? Can you accept the fact that he may very well be right? Can you accept the fact that, at least, even assuming that we are all wrong and bound to hell, that we are reasonable rational people worthy of respect, not some glib post asking for us to 'stop sexual immorality' or 'five questions to get you back in church again' or 'yet another reason Gawd is Good and you should throw away the reason He gave you.'

 

Question Four: Can you state the argument correctly? Can you swallow your pride enough to say that the burden of proof lies with you to prove the existance of any kind of God/Goddess? Can you stomach having an apostate rephrase the question as it truly is, not as the creationists or the pro-life followers or the anti-stem cell research choose to manipulate the question?

 

Question Five: You come here with your glib sayings and your flat cliches about how Jesus loves us and that if we just look at it with Christian goggles on, everything will make sense again.

 

Consitering this is an APOSTATE forum... full of FORMER DEVOUT Christians... many fundamentalists - indeed, we have many pastors and preachers and such in our ranks...

 

Don't you think that they(I say 'they' because I never believed in Christianity) have asked themselves every question you could think of and more? Don't you think they tried desperately to hold on to their faith?

 

Melin

[Reach]

Here Merlin, you can use my bullhorn!

 

Now, let's do it again and this time, with feeling, like you really believe what you are saying!!!

 

Ready? Take it from the top.

 

[Guest Slayer-2004]

Ah the hilarity .

 

Too bad most christians are so clueless that they wouldnt have a clue as to what your talking about .

 

INSIDE LOOK : mental process of a fundy .

 

Time : 3:24 PM

*Brain operating in normal asshole human being mode*

Time: 3:25 PM

-Eyes notice buybull on table *Brain shifts into OMFGINEEDTOIMPRESSGODANDSTARTPRETENDINGTHATIMNOTANASSHOLE mode .*

Time: 3:30 PM

-logs onto exchristian.net to preach to all infidels . enters Merlins thread with apologetic intent . Reads

Question Four: Can you state the argument correctly? Can you swallow your pride enough to say that the burden of proof lies with you to prove the existance of any kind of God/Goddess? Can you stomach having an apostate rephrase the question as it truly is, not as the creationists or the pro-life followers or the anti-stem cell research choose to manipulate the question?

*Brain shifts into arrogant "holier then thou mode" Prepares hands for posting use*

Time 4:29 PM ( Wha ? He cant reed guud . Wat did ya all expecrt of teh averg fundii ? Give teh funddi a brayk . )

-continues to read

Question Five: You come here with your glib sayings and your flat cliches about how Jesus loves us and that if we just look at it with Christian goggles on, everything will make sense again.

 

Consitering this is an APOSTATE forum... full of FORMER DEVOUT Christians... many fundamentalists - indeed, we have many pastors and preachers and such in our ranks...

 

Don't you think that they(I say 'they' because I never believed in Christianity) have asked themselves every question you could think of and more? Don't you think they tried desperately to hold on to their faith?

*Brain prepares cells for logic usage . Preparing apologetic mode . Running Script "Reason"....*

WARNING ! CRITICAL SYSTEM FAILURE !

 

NON_CHRISTIAN_LOGIC=MAKES_SENSE Is incompatible with the program BIBLE_IS ALWAYS_RIGHT.EXE .

 

ERROR !!! ERROR !!! ERROR !!!

 

CHRISTDOWS WILL NOW RESTART ITSELF AND DELETE ALL TEMPORARY DATA TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE SYSTEM .

*

Time 1:39 AM

*Brain restarts

 

Welcome to BRAINWASOFT CHRISTDOWS . CHRISTDOWS has recovered from a serious error . The program Valid_logic.exe has been permanently deleted to prevent this from happening in the future .*

-Posts "It doesnt matter because you never were true christians"

[dogmatically_challenged]

[BlueGiant]

The sad thing is that scenario is probably pretty close to the truth.

[crazy-tiger]

Welcome to BRAINWASOFT CHRISTDOWS . CHRISTDOWS has recovered from a serious error . The program Valid_logic.exe has been permanently deleted to prevent this from happening in the future .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you've had a lot of experience with this...

[Lunar Shadow]

This thread is in response to the dozens of "Instant-Quiz Conversion Kits" I have seen sprout up over the internet. Either it's a flash applet asking if you have EVER sinned in you WHOLE LIFE, or it's a cute little web page saying that the misguided atheists don't really understand their own beliefs, or that they need to understand that they were just hurt by da baaad people, not the True Christians™.

 

Well... time for the quiz-takers to fire back.

 

Question One: Have you taken a thourough understanding of your own Bible? Many "Christians" are woefully ignorant of their own holy texts and what they say/command, much less the ways it has been used(often times while still being in line with it's teachings) to condone slavery, segregation, rape, witch trials, crusades, inquisitions, I could go on.

 

Question Two: Have you studied the opposition, or are you drawing all your facts from us from the Christian Propaganda machine? Something I come across *very* often is the utter brazenness of which Christians lie and distort the beliefs of others.

 

Examples:

• Wicca is a road that leads straight to Satanism, if it isn't devil-worship in and of itself.
   
   
   
  
• Evolution assumes that our great-great-great grandfathers were slime and bacteria.
   
   
   
  
• Atheists want to keep the Bible out of the science room because they are afraid that it will stand up favorably against evolution(ism).
   
   
   
  
• Scientists pull the dates on fossil bones out of a hat, because carbon dating cannot be verified and is inherently unreliable.
  

I'm not even going to bother refuting this. It's been done so many times it's sick.

 

Question Three: Can you respect you opponent? Can you accept that he may have insights into the Bible you do not? Can you accept the fact that he may very well be right? Can you accept the fact that, at least, even assuming that we are all wrong and bound to hell, that we are reasonable rational people worthy of respect, not some glib post asking for us to 'stop sexual immorality' or 'five questions to get you back in church again' or 'yet another reason Gawd is Good and you should throw away the reason He gave you.'

 

Question Four: Can you state the argument correctly? Can you swallow your pride enough to say that the burden of proof lies with you to prove the existance of any kind of God/Goddess? Can you stomach having an apostate rephrase the question as it truly is, not as the creationists or the pro-life followers or the anti-stem cell research choose to manipulate the question?

 

Question Five: You come here with your glib sayings and your flat cliches about how Jesus loves us and that if we just look at it with Christian goggles on, everything will make sense again.

 

Consitering this is an APOSTATE forum... full of FORMER DEVOUT Christians... many fundamentalists - indeed, we have many pastors and preachers and such in our ranks...

 

Don't you think that they(I say 'they' because I never believed in Christianity) have asked themselves every question you could think of and more? Don't you think they tried desperately to hold on to their faith?

 

Melin

 

beautiful Merlin, absolutly beautiful. This pretty much puts in to words (ones that I could never have strung together myself) how I have been feeling with my dealings with the fundi mindset when ever I am forced to go to church.

[Lunar Shadow]

Ah the hilarity .

 

Too bad most christians are so clueless that they wouldnt have a clue as to what your talking about .

 

INSIDE LOOK : mental process of a fundy .

 

Time : 3:24 PM

*Brain operating in normal asshole human being mode*

Time: 3:25 PM

-Eyes notice buybull on table *Brain shifts into OMFGINEEDTOIMPRESSGODANDSTARTPRETENDINGTHATIMNOTANASSHOLE mode .*

Time: 3:30 PM

-logs onto exchristian.net to preach to all infidels . enters Merlins thread with apologetic intent . Reads

 

*Brain shifts into arrogant "holier then thou mode" Prepares hands for posting use*

Time 4:29 PM ( Wha ? He cant reed guud . Wat did ya all expecrt of teh averg fundii ? Give teh funddi a brayk . )

-continues to read

 

*Brain prepares cells for logic usage . Preparing apologetic mode . Running Script "Reason"....*

WARNING ! CRITICAL SYSTEM FAILURE !

 

NON_CHRISTIAN_LOGIC=MAKES_SENSE Is incompatible with the program BIBLE_IS ALWAYS_RIGHT.EXE .

 

ERROR !!! ERROR !!! ERROR !!!

 

CHRISTDOWS WILL NOW RESTART ITSELF AND DELETE ALL TEMPORARY DATA TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE TO THE SYSTEM .

*

Time 1:39 AM

*Brain restarts

 

Welcome to BRAINWASOFT CHRISTDOWS . CHRISTDOWS has recovered from a serious error . The program Valid_logic.exe has been permanently deleted to prevent this from happening in the future .*

-Posts "It doesnt matter because you never were true christians"

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't you think that they(I say 'they' because I never believed in Christianity) have asked themselves every question you could think of and more? Don't you think they tried desperately to hold on to their faith?

 

Melin

Good post, Merlin!

 

Actually it's more than that. Many of us have been on the other side, defending Christianity the same way the Christians are doing, the ones coming to this site.

 

I've been on the other side of the table in the other chair, and I know internally how I felt and thought and how I reasoned, and can compare it to how it feels today.

 

Somehow, it's so much easier to defend this side; it's like running downhill with the wind in your back! Maybe bike is a better example yet.

 

PS.

 

Pretty cool post, Slayer

[chefranden]

Marvelous Merlin. However, you asked more then 5 questions. Captain Kirk usually only asked one to make the Robot's brain smoke. What you have here is overkill, and it is a federal offense to overuse pesticide.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, the cpt Kirk version for Chef here:

 

Question to Christian: Are you stupid?

 

Is that short enough?

[Guest Joseph]

Ok, the cpt Kirk version for Chef here:

 

Question to Christian: Are you stupid?

 

Is that short enough?

 

The Longer Form:

 

Paul's Original Sin doctrine states that all men are condemned from birth in an effort to place all of mankind under total depravity due to the acts of Adam (the first man).

 

The "Christ-child" must have been born through an innocent womb and thus Mary was born also without sin through the Immaculate Conception against the Original Sin doctrine outright.

 

For the Christ to be given as a perfect sacrifice under christian theology, he must have been perfect during his life, sinless in the eyes of their version of god. Thus it comes to a point that the christian must ask himself or herself the following questions.

 

Is God a respector of persons in allowing Mary a special sinless birth separate from all mankind so that the Original Sin would not pass upon Jesus or is this doctrine of Immaculate conception at fault?

 

If the doctrine of Immaculate conception is at fault, then does the Original Sin Doctrine apply to Jesus?

 

If the Original Sin is upon Jesus then his sinless nature no longer exists and neither does the innocent sacrifice required to remove man's sins through those that would believe upon such a thing, thusly if you deny the doctrine of immaculate conception and yet accept the doctrine of original sin, how can you claim that Jesus was sinless as almost all Protestants do?

 

If Catholic, how you can assume without any prophetic voice or reference that Mary was without sin at her birth and also why would God do such an improbably act outright in the respect of a single person over any other against what God claims He/It would ever do? Does not the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception outright defy God's justice?

 

Does not Paul's teachings of Original Sin conflict in totality with Ezekiel's justice statement found in Ezekiel 18:20?

 

If the only method of redemption is through the particularly vapid ideas and doctrines surrounding your version of a mangod, then why does no hebrew scripture speak to such a case and instead teach that in the age of messiah the temple will be rebuilt and the sacrifice of animals re-instated? If your mangod is the "final sacrifice" then why would the prophets (Including Ezekiel, Hosea, Moses, et al) teach he was not the final sacrifice?

 

Why does it proclaim quite clearly that the messiah would have the government upon his shoulders in that Tanakh when your mangod was killed?

 

Why does the Hebrew God proclaim repeatedly that nothing in the Earth is Him, and that nothing seen is Him? Why does God proclaim and setup as one of the gravest of all sins to worship something in the Earth as Him? Why does God forbid the Jews from worshiping any idea or theological development about Himself later in history yet the idea of the Trinity is virtually centuries old? Why does God proclaim without equivocation that He alone is God and that He is One Lord and that He will not give his glory to another and why doe Christianity teach mankind to do the exact opposite of these commands?

 

Why does the Tanakh teach mankind that it is an outright abomination to offer to the Jewish God any human life while the NT attempts to say that the Omniscient One forgot about having to have his own self/son murdered in order to simply forgive mankind?

 

Why does the story of John use the "sacrifice of the lamb of God" as redemptive when this is strictly forbidden under the Tanakh law, as the lamb was for Passover and NOT FOR REDEMPTIVE PURPOSES??

 

Why does the Church claim that in order to have salvation one must injest blood and eat living flesh (communion) against the Tanakh teaching that such acts are an abomination toward God?

 

What does Paul not teach a single time about the miracles or virgin birth of Jesus and why would Paul teach that Jesus found it not robbery to be equal to God when Jesus states that his Father is greater than him?

 

Why do you worship Jesus when Jesus, himself, commanded all honor, glory, and power should be toward God (whom he called Father) alone?

 

If Hosea teaches that in the days without a temple that mankind is to use prayer to remove iniquity then why do you teach that a mangod's death/blood removes iniquity? Second, if there is only two times (without and with a temple) and there is no point at which human blood is acceptable for the God of the Jews why would you teach such injustice as holy?

 

If I told you that to purchase something from me you must first go kill an innocent child and trade that child's blood for the item you desired, would you think it a proper and moral form of payment to use innocent blood as a comodity? Why would you allow your version of god to do such an immoral act and not question it at the foundation?

 

These were the reasons I took my leave from the Christian faith and there is absolutely no amount of mental dissonance while exists that could have kept me within it. Whatever Being exists would have to justify having to have his own self/son murdered in payment for actions which were setup from the beginning of time by finite beings before I could begin to trust in such vapid and immoral acts as holy.

[Ouroboros]

That was a bit more than just one long question.

But really good.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe my head is too sluggish right now, but can you elaborate a bit on

Is God a respector of persons in allowing Mary a special sinless birth separate from all mankind so that the Original Sin would not pass upon Jesus or is this doctrine of Immaculate conception at fault?

I'm not sure I understood the question...

[Guest Joseph]

Maybe my head is too sluggish right now, but can you elaborate a bit on

 

I'm not sure I understood the question...

 

was posted in regards to....

 

Is God a respector of persons in allowing Mary a special sinless birth separate from all mankind so that the Original Sin would not pass upon Jesus or is this doctrine of Immaculate conception at fault?

 

Complex question so I will break it down.

 

There is a vast difference in the rank of Mary between Catholic faith and Protestant faith. Catholic faith involves the idea that Mary was sinless at birth due to the requirement that the mangod be sinless, otherwise Jesus would have had the Original Sin upon him and not been fit to be killed.

 

The Protestant idea on this is a total rewrite of Original Sin doctrine (different from a literal Paul version found in the book of Romans) to say that it was not the sin of Adam upon all mankind but the ability to sin (or perhaps a proclivity to sin). Thus Adam's sin is not upon you, but you will someday sin (all have sinned and fallen short the verse states) and thus you "need the mangod to save you."

 

Because of the vast differences in belief between Catholic and Protestant, this question is really an axe that you can grind as CHRISTENDOM does not even know the correct answer (if they did there wouldn't be protestants and catholics). It normally is formed in a person due to simple dogma acceptance or perhaps enculturation to one form of Christianity over another, it (the idea of whether the Immaculate Conception applies to Mary or the rewrite of the Original Sin Doctrine to be a proclivity) is definitely not from reasoned thought processes.

 

It comes down to this: If the Doctrine of Original Sin stands, then Mary must be under this doctrine outright or God is a respector of persons. This violates various hebrew scriptures which say:

 

2Sa 14:14 For we must needs die, and [are] as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect [any] person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

 

2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do [it]: for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

 

The Christian could try to argue that this does not apply to the NT, but they would be extremely mistaken in such a claim:

 

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

 

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

What this means basically is that God does not hold one man above another nor give one man more ability to be "saved" than any other. If the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception is upheld then God is an injust god, and not the Jewish God outright. If you deny the doctrine of immaculate conception and still hold to the original version of the Original Sin Doctrine then Mary was under Adam's sin...making Jesus also (ouch!). This is a theological melt-down for Christian thought outright.

 

The Protestant argument is different however. They claim that while Mary was under the Original Sin Doctrine Jesus did not have the sin of Adam upon him due to not having an earthly father. There is a horrible misconception taking place in this thought pattern which is based upon ancient reasoning and not modern science. It was believed that the male implanted a "total child" into the womb which grew (not half DNA but total DNA) that is why the "Sin of Adam" is not the sin of Adam and Eve. Because Adam gave the child TO Eve. This ancient thought setup the idea that God implanted a total child into Mary, and because this child was not from an Earthly man it was out from under the sins of Adam (even if Original Sin applied).

 

Problem begins when we realize that the child comes from both man and woman's DNA now, the thought breaks down. The Church now claims that Jesus' body was formed from Mary's matter by God within her womb. This means that the same flesh carried down from Adam was used to form Jesus' body. Thus the only reasoning which can comply with such a statement is to accept that Original Sin Doctrine DOES APPLY and Jesus has the actions of Adam upon him. For this very reason a re-write of the idea of Original Sin has taken place over the ages (to work out this illogical conflict). And the changes were to the very meaning of the words written by Paul in Romans, from that of Adam's actions being upon all mankind to a "watered down version" meaning that Adam's actions placed within all mankind the proclivity to sin. Thus Jesus then had this proclivity to sin but was still sinless because he didn't sin in his lifetime.

 

Problem is that in order to come to this watered down version of Original Sin is to violate the very words of the text they claim is without fault and breathed directly from God, and in doing such a thing they must once hold on to nothing more than a very complicated form of cognitive dissonance or their entire theological structure will collapse.

 

For more information on this you could do a comparison between Paul's Original Sin Doctrine and the Justice of Ezekiel (18:20). These two texts are stark opposites and almost every Rabbi I have ever read puts it very clearly and without equivocation that there has never been the concept of Original Sin within Judaism nor is mankind "totally depraved." In fact, under Judaism it is taught that we are children from / of the Most High God and by such to proclaim mankind is totally depraved is a type of sin (or a grave discredit to what mankind is capable of).

 

Lookup OutreachJudaism for some very harsh and clear ideas about how Christianity's "doctrines" are nothing more than illogical strapped together ideas from patch-working down through the ages.