Why Do You Remain A Christian?

March 1, 2013

According to scripture, there was no one good, thus apart from Christ Jesus the bible states the same today.

And all I can say is fuck your scripture. Without your little god, the bible, you'd have NOTHING to yak about to anyone. And the more egregious thing is that people like you love quoting the bible but still mis-quote or take things completely out of context. Case in point - no one good because the bible states it? Nope. A few passages from some of the books in the bible but not the entire bible and those passages had nothing to do with a universal condemnation of humanity as you sociopaths love to hawk. The main from, from Isaiah, had NOTHING to do with an entire species but was referencing a localized situation with Israel and even only parts of Israel. In fact, Isaiah went on to talk about others who were righteous! Paul, in Romans, merely parrots Isaiah to push his own agenda which was to wrest the xtian way away from the alleged eyewitnesses of a jesus in order to establish his own christ cult which you follow today without even being aware of it! Also, if everyone is bad or are sinners, then what do you take from the verses where you boy god claimed 'he didn't come for the righteous but for sinners' and 'a physician doesn't come for the healthy but for the sick'??? I'll be all eyes watching you tapdance out of that one. LOL

Before I was saved I quit drugs and theft, but only because I did not want to be caught. I took responsibility for my family but not without grudge or without selfish splurges. It was not until I had a change of heart where I really changed.

And before I was saved I had a much happier and more rational life and way of looking at things. When I came into the delusion of your cult, things went downhill and for the next 25 years it was a complete shit storm until I finally realized, over a year ago, that your cult teachings were nothing more than a load of crap. I've been reading and studying atheist writings ever since and have NEVER looked back. So, I think my testimony cancels yours out. LOL And isn't it funny how most xtians lived horrible lives and behaved despicably prior to being saved but once saved, the magical bunny allegedly takes over and everything is so wonderful? LOL

how can we hold God under the rules/laws in which He gave us?

Oh, I dunno - let me guess. Didn't he allegedly make us in his own image? If so, then we should have the SAME characteristics he has including expecting him to follow the same rules he forces on others.

Do you hold your boss under the rules of his employees or teachers under the same rules as the students? It makes no sence.

Yeah, it makes no sense (not sence btw) for someone still mired in the cult who is incapable of critical thinking but for a rational person - YES the boss should be held to the same rules as employees or teacher as with students. Rules such as being honest, treating people with respect, not favoring one over another are just a few of thousands of rules I can come up with. And speaking from a reality based world that I, unlike you, live in - when I was a supervisor and/or manager, I was ALWAYS expected to follow the same rules my associates followed - no exceptions. And I gladly did so.

There always has to be a top leader or king in order for there to be order.

Yep, for cultists there always is a person to spoon feed them but I don't think your alleged boy god, jesus, behaved that way. At least that's what I've learned after studying the bible for almost 30 years - something you should do more before spouting nonsense and ignorance. I realize, however, that the most dangerous challenge to cults like yours is a person who questions everything and stands up to alleged 'leadership' especially when said leadership is abusive.

Now these were just a few things I poked holes in. I'm sure that if I had the time and inclination, I could have you talking to yourself but to me this is an incredible waste of time because you'll either ignore what I just posted or you'll do the expected tap dancing around everything I've posited. Oh well, as Solomon allegedly said - there's nothing new under the sun.

March 1, 2013

(Snip!)

p.s.

~~If you're interested in doing this Stranger, I think I can help you. Just let me know, ok?~~

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm withdrawing my offer to help you, Stranger.

In writing my response to Deconverted yesterday (post #2757) I looked back thru this thread and saw just how much time and effort I've lavished upon you. Sorry man, but you've sucked me dry! I have nothing left to give. Whatever I write, you never change from being the same Stranger, who joined up almost three years ago.

Whatever I write, you'll just go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, being the same old Stranger.

If it's because you're just too stupid to know different, why should I bother any more?

If it's because you're just stubborn... ditto. Why?

If it's because you're just a troll and you enjoy doing this... same answer. Why?

If there's another reason... I really can't be bothered to figure it out.

Not now. Not any more.

BAA.

March 1, 2013

Stranger, you are NOT allowed (by the voice of reason) to:

1. talk about God's plan or God's being in control AND deny that God is the first cause of all effects;

2. say that humans make decisions of which God is not the first cause AND refuse to show scripture that describes human decisions as having those properties (it won't do merely to show scripture where humans make decisions, because that's not the issue);

3. try to prove assertions about God by using piss-poor, false analogies between an omniscient, omnipotent being and fallible, limited policemen, daddies, you and me...

4. present your experiences or emotions as evidence AND refuse to allow us our experiences and emotions as evidence

March 1, 2013

Yes, it is true there are many gods or religions that share similar

stories with the bible. Does that discredit or support the bible? If all

came from a few on the ark than all would have flood stories, and they

do. Also being the Jews lived with the Greeks so long the Greeks may of

used the ideas from Israel. Read Acts where the Greek called Paul a

Greek God and Paul rebuked them, saying clearly Christianity is not part

of the Greek god system.

*sigh* There was no worldwide

flood. (though an ancient memory of local flooding, maybe from the

paleolithic era, is a possibility for the origin of the story) It's not physically possible - as in the Laws of Physics.

There are so many problems with

this story I don't even know where to start. For one, genetically, it

isn't possible for the entire human race to have descended from 8

people.. and 5 were blood related. We'd all be down's syndrome or

something worse. Only sin was not in it's full effect at the time thus why humans lived much longer thus it was not law till later in family relations. At this point there was no issues.

Bullshit!   You have NO evidence of this, it does NOT say that in the Bible. There is NO evidence that people lived longer in archaeology... people's remains that HAVE been found have been seen that on average they lived SHORTER lives than we did. Where does it say in the Bible that incest was okay? How many CHILDREN throughout the ages have been scarred for life because of the ambiguity of the 'perfect word of god' on this issue? You make me sick.

How it is logical to say that sin was not in it's 'full effect' at the time but for god almighty to DESTROY the entire world because sin was so bad? Christians just make shit up so they can reconcile the fact that it doesn't make sense. It's just one bad and irrational excuse after another.

That's not enough genetic variability. Gathering,

caring for and feeding all the animals of the world? No... not possible. Animals would of been limited as only the basics of kinds were on earth at that point

There's no such thing as a 'kind'. You can't have your cake and eat it too - either ALL the animals were created, as it says in Genesis (because Adam NAMED them all) or they evolved - which ALL the evidence supports. Do you have ANY CLUE how many animals the world has? Even if you narrowed it down in taxonomy to phylotypes? You did NOT read the evidence I supplied, or if you did you are too dense to comprehend it.

The amount of water needed to cover all the mountains of the earth? Oceans are as deep under the surface as mountains are above. Waters came from both under and above.

Seriously? DO THE MATH: the Earth has 332,500,000 cubic miles of water in it. in TOTAL (including water vapor, aquifers, etc..)

- A good approximation for the radius of the Earth at sea level is 3960 miles.

- Earth at sea level=4/3 pi r^3 = 260,120,252,602.5 cubic miles, approx.

- Everest is about 5.5 miles above sea level, so we add that to the average sea level for a radius of 3965.5 miles, approximately-

- Earth completely flooded=4/3 pi r^3 = ~261,205,593,010.8 cubic miles.

- Subtracting the first volume from the second, we get 1,085,340,408.3 cubic miles.

So, to totally flood the Earth to the top of Mt. Everest would take over a billion cubic miles of water. This is 752,840,408.3 CUBIC MILES more water than earth actually has.

1 cubic mile = 1.10111715 × 10¹² US gallons ....YOU do the math! All life would end because that kind of volume of water would increase the pressure in the atmosphere and COOK everything alive. It's called science, and it works.

The

salinity problem (all the ocean life would have died out too), the

plants would have all died after so much time under water... it's so

completely ridiculous. Plant seeds survive, thus we see it every year in winter and in flood seasons. I would think all fish would die under ice but fish are built to funtion slow when needed.

Salt water fish can not survive in fresh water and vice versa, except for a couple of species. What does ice have to do with anything? Seeds are not easy to store... and do not survive well in adverse conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed

Get some various seed and drop them in a glass of WATER.. and see how long they survive, and NOT germinate.

http://ncse.com/cej/...oyage-noahs-ark

please check the citations - they aren't making shit up.

All of this site is based on current findings. We do not know how things were in that time. Many points on the site are easy to refute.

What? Umm.. yes, we do. Do you have evidence that the conditions of the earth were DIFFERENT 4000 years ago? What evidence do you have? Ice cores? If its so easy to refute I challenge you to do so. Put your money where your mouth is. You are lying again.

Morally, it's reprehensible.

Really.. drown every living being on the planet.. infants, children,

everyone? Why? Didn't god know this would happen before he created the

world? It doesn't logically jive with omniscience - at all. Why kill all

the animals? If this god can pop beings into existence why the heck

would he need to drown them (pretty terrifying death, no?) to get rid of

them?

The Flood myth comes from the

story of Sargon Of Akkad, which predates the Hebrews by a LONG time. The

Greeks (Egyptians, Sumerians, Persians, etc..) can NOT have gotten

their info from the Israelites because they didn't exist yet. These

cultures were BEFORE the Hebrews. The archaeological record is very

clear on that. You aren't grasping the timelines... we are talking

thousands of years here, not 50. Good grief, the Sumerians even predate

the Egyptians.

Where did you conclude this (the age of the Hebrews)?

The people in Noah's day had 40 plus years to listen and be saved, longer than many humans. According to scripture, there was no one good, thus apart from Christ Jesus the bible states the same today.

umm.. from here, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

and here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites

Ravenstar, you are a very smart lady. Concerning the bible being the

oldest book in the world, It appears I was wrong. I know I would have

trouble keeping pace with your mind. It is too bad you take it your that

smart just by chance.

Thank you but I'm no genius. But

who said I took it as chance? The basic ability runs in my family

(Thanks mom and dad!) but I've worked damn hard to educate myself.

It's not chance at all. It didn't come out of the blue - I didn't get

my knowledge supernaturally. Now if I could just put that kind of effort

in at the gym...

LOL it is a blessing we have so much to eat here. You are gifted for sure. My sister can read a book and remember everything in it. Me, well, in school a cheat sheet would prove much better than study.

You are right about my studies. I do look at Christian web sites much

more often than not for clear reasons. It does seem with Christianity

there is rarely middle ground. Between you look for ways to disproof God

and the bible or one looks for ways to proof God and the bible.

You seem to think that I've spent my life trying to disprove god... you are SO wrong there. I'm an EX-christian,

a whole lot of time was seeking truth within christianity. I figured

that if it was true the evidence would back it up... it doesn't. Not

even close... but I started out, and for many years, studying all this

stuff believing that it was true. I reject your sources because I've

already been IMMERSED in them. I might even know the interpretations

better than you. But...They are wrong.

What made you begain to doubt? Why or what lead you to believe one scource over another?

That's a whole other conversation... but I didn't begin to believe 'one source over another' I went seeking for the truth... because if something is TRUE then it will be supported by evidence. The more I studied the more I realized that the Bible is so full of unsupported claims and bad history that it's fucking ridiculous. In every area the evidence points away from it, not towards it... and I am a good enough researcher to follow the claims of science (and the others too) and verify it for myself. I don't have to ACCEPT anything on hearsay or others opinions or interpretation of the evidence.

Philosophy and apologetics don't satisfy logic and truth... facts do. I am very careful when I study to glean the facts from presupposition and make my own conclusions. For example: EVOLUTION is a fact... supported by so much evidence it's overwhelming and I have had to really work hard to be able to comprehend the information and evidence available because I am not a scientist, so I could understand it for myself. THAT'S what it takes to follow the TRUTH. Anything else is dishonest and lazy.

You did take a quick look at the links I gave for the Exodus I hope.

Yes.. I KNOW them, I knew them years ago.. they are wrong. So far

there is NO evidence for the Exodus.. none. If they find something I am

willing to look at it - but 2-3 million people wandering in the desert

for 40 years should leave SOME evidence. There is nothing.

Most of this time they were all looking at sites in which came from Roman Catholic tradition rather than the word, thus now there is more evidence, though it is across the other portion of the red sea. Saidia arbia (spelled wrong) even has a fence around the region and will not even allow visiters.

We've already debunked that in another thread (The Caldwells) in the science forum. It's dishonest pseudo-archaeology by people with an agenda - and NO credentials.

If you want facts, what do you do when you find some that counteract with your believes?

I've already looked at both sides.. all sides..and still do, if it's a fact no matter what it is I will consider it. I don't study with a conclusion in mind.

I don't swallow other's interpretations.. and MOST christian sites and

books unfortunately are very low on scientific facts and very high on

opinions and trying to justify things instead of just taking the

evidence or lack thereof and being neutral in examining it. However... I

try very hard to be unbiased when looking at facts. I am brutal in my

expectations of scholarship. Example.. if you are trying to prove an

hypothesis about an aspect of evolution, you'd better have a background

in biology or biochemistry and be prepared to submit it for peer review.

A PH.D in Engineering ain't gonna cut it. Everyone has an opinion, can

you back it up empirically? Anecdotes and eye-witness accounts are among

the most unreliable forms of evidence (ask the FBI). IF god interacts

with the physical world there would be SOME evidence. If he doesn't

what's the point?

and exactly WHERE is heaven?

The NT tells us that Jesus rose bodily... and went to Heaven. That would

make Heaven a physical place.. where? In the sky? Hubble hasn't found

it yet. If he didn't then where is the body? Why raise him physically at

all just to discard the body again? It's ILLOGICAL.

It is said flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. John saw a vision as did the OT saints. It is believed Paul saw heaven after being left for dead after being stoned. Heaven can never be found this side of life. Jesus, when arisen, did not have a body like ours. He could walk through walls and dissapear and reapear. Jesus had died and was resurrected, but had not the same body as before, thus then having access to both worlds

BULLSHIT. Did Thomas not TOUCH Jesus? Paul was stoned alright - he saw a VISION... an hallucination. What was the point of creating physical beings at all (or even the entire physical universe) if the 'immortal life' was not meant to be physical in the first place? Think about it.. Adam and Eve were created to live on the earth... forever, in paradise (earth) as physical beings. Jesus blood sacrifice was supposed to nullify the death sentence given to them... but now it's not about that - it's about some ethereal afterlife existence. No.. it makes no sense at all. It's sophistry and apologetics to explain away the fact that PEOPLE DIE.. and they don't come back. If you actually read the Bible you can easily SEE the EVOLUTION of these ideas.

Later on I will get into more of some of your statements because it is

clear this has been your study for many years and you know I cannot

compete. That being said, I will be looking more into these things. When

it does revolve around the truth of the bible stories there does seem

to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them.

No there isn't... the

archaeological evidence does NOT back up the majority of the Bible

stories. Please cite serious studies on this - maybe I've missed

something. I would admnish you to do the same.. LOOK at the evidence.

With an open mind.

I truly will do this with as open as a mind that I can have and will be checking out both sides of every story

I really hope so, but somehow I doubt it.

Any how, I will have to take one at a time. I can never say your

thoughts are higher than mine, as my thoughts rest in heaven, but you

certainly have been gifted with many smarts:)

I have to give credit to my addiction to reading, history, and teh Google.

Would you say you have sin? Let me ask that in a different light. Have

you ever done something you had wished you had not? Have you ever told a

lie? Have you ever stolen from anyone or place, even in a small regard?

I don't believe in 'sin', the

way christians do. Sin means 'missing the mark' in Hebrew. Here's the

rub.. there is no such thing as 'perfection' in our universe. We haven't

seen it yet.. there is such a thing as balance though and laws of the

material world. Cause and effect, yada, yada,yada... everything we know

about evolution and psychology demonstrates that nothing is perfect, it

just changes to adapt to it's environment. People do bad things, people

do good things.. it seems we are progressing to be more empathetic,

because it's a good survival technique. Science predicts these things.

We agree on one thing. perfection cannot be found upon the earth. As an ex Christian though ofcourse you know I see God as perfect thus the whole reason we need Him and His guidance. In other words, can inperfection have a law of perfection? If not, is any one's law better or should be looked at with higher regards than another? The same could be said concerning morals. Is it possible to establish morals in which all agree and all should be held accountable for apart from a higher being. No disrespect, but to me it is as letting kids raise themselves. Kids need parents for learning and structure. That is how I see humans with God.

I know how you see god. But if the Bible is the presentation of a 'moral' god - then it is deeply flawed. I am more moral than god. I do not kill, torture or lie, tell people they can own slaves or sell their daughters, nor do I get others to do my dirty work. The Bible is chock full of immorality and any 'god' that can give laws but break them himself is not worthy of being worshipped.

Have I ever done things I'm not

proud of? Yes... everyone has. Have I done things I'm proud of, yes. I'm

very committed to personal growth and being a better person... I don't

feel any existential guilt for not being perfect. I fail sometimes, I

get up - dust myself off, make amends and own up to my bullcrap and

learn my lesson. I become a better person that way. I FORGIVE myself, I

take personal responsibility for my actions. I also give myself credit

for the things I do right.

Before I was saved I quit drugs and theft, but only because I did not want to be caught. I took responsibility for my family but not without grudge or without selfish splurges. It was not until I had a change of heart where I really changed.

I am a recovered addict (alcohol) I have worked hard at recovery... because it was the right thing to do, because it hurt me and others. I had to change within to sustain any kind of lasting sobriety... (dry drunks are flippin' nasty - it isn't enough to just not do the drug, you have to heal the part of you that is trying to escape reality) so there is an anecdote for you of someone who didn't need god to change. Whatever.. I've worked in addictions and I've seen people change their lives, some were religious, some weren't. The process is the same. I'm not impressed.

I believe that the majority of people on earth believe they have sin

in their lives or have sinned to at least say they have not lived

perfect lives, such as God in heaven Who has no sin at all and is set

apart holy from all sin and in fact, He cannot sin. This is the reason

in which I believe most religions offer sacrifices. Not usually with

animals these days though it has been known that children in some cases

were often used. Theses days I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that

one must do things, or works, or like manner to possibly have a chance

to go to heaven. Pray three times a day, facing a certain direction. Do

good works x amount of times per week. Hike and bow to a rock some call

God. You see, most religions one must live a life of structure. A life

of costume. One must try to over come their sin, or better put have more

good come out of them than evil or bad things.

God is not perfect - he is a

monster. Read your darn bible. He has broken at least one 'commandment'

over and over to the tune of MILLIONS, murder. Thou shalt not kill..

really now. Or is he a 'do as I say, not as I do' parent? He has

commanded many others to commit atrocities... so he is culpable. If you

think he is perfect you haven't read the bible. Sending people to hell

for eternity for a finite life is not JUSTICE. It's sadism.

Let us say you bought a new doggie for the holidays. You fed it, watered it, gave it attention and took it for walks. The problem is he was not a very devoted or thankful dog. He bit, growled, did his luxery on the floor and never would listen. He became a danger to all visiters and your kids. Do you have the right to have him put down? God is not human. His laws are for humans. Without God can human give life? What did your mama always tell you. I brought you into this world and I can take you outa this world. LOL Point being, how can we hold God under the rules/laws in which He gave us? Do you hold your boss under the rules of his employees or teachers under the same rules as the students? It makes no sence. There always has to be a top leader or king in order for there to be order.

First of all.. if a pet is that dangerous it's because he wasn't socialized properly in the first place, has been abused, or is ill. That would be the owner's fault - not the dog's. Are you suggesting that we are God's pets?

Earlier you said something about a parental relationship... if my child is a danger to others (say, a teenager) do I have the right to 'put him down'? Should I torture him for the rest of his life?, put him in a cage and burn him over and over and over? Or is it my responsibility to get help for him? What the hell is wrong with you?

If I knew that I would have to torture my child I would NEVER allow it to be born. EVER.

God doesn't 'put people down', he TORTURES them for eternity. Since he knows all from the beginning of time it doesn't make sense that he would allow all these billions of people to exist in the first place if he KNOWS that he will have to torture them... it's monstrous to even think about. And YES, I do hold my boss accountable.. there isn't one moral law for regular people and one for leaders and another for a god.. that's the freakin' point - THAT ISN'T MORALITY... it's SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.. it's elitist.

The funny thing is I see no

difference between christians (or any other religion - maybe buddhism)

and other people as far as 'sin' goes. There is NO power there and they

aren't better people than anyone else - if anything christiandom is

responsible for most of the horrid atrocities throughout history. IF there was any truth to it there would be SOME evidence that being a christian makes one a better person. There is none.

People are good, people are bad... it's pretty much the same throughout

the world. Actually, secular nations are more peaceful and have a

better standard of living and human rights records. So.. the evidence is

actually kind of against it.. though not conclusive yet.
You say you believed yourself before. Did this change your life? I am convinced you can talk to any Chrstian and they will tell you the before and after life with Jesus Christ. I myself can testify greatly to this. I truly do not live life for myself any more. Knowing any day could be my last (part of why I have not been responding much as of late is due to me being quite sick right now combined with an ongoing medical condition). Ofcourse, it could be anyone's last day. I am just happy and blessed that I am at peace and I no longer have a fear of death but only a hope of the afterlife, where I can sit on the lap of the only One Who has brought me thus far. You see, I credit Jesus alone for saving my life at least five times. I should of died many moons ago. So many times our own experiences are what we learn and grow on. I truly hope this is the direction you want to go. One day soon I know the proof will be undeniable. Right now however, free will is at play.

Blah, blah, blah... I'm glad you feel that Jesus has been good to you.. awesome, whatever. And I'm sorry you haven't been well. (Where is this awesome healing Jesus promised you)

Have you considered that other people feel this way that aren't christian? I'm sure there are hundreds of millions of people who say the EXACT same thing who follow another religion. They do.. every day. Your testimonies don't mean anything when they are NOT unique, and they aren't.

Did christianity change my life.. sure. Did my leaving christianity change my life.. yup... did my divorce change my life.. you betcha. Did therapy change my life, yes, did my daughters birth change my life... more than I can describe. Life is all about change.... what's the point? I've heard testimonies of people who've been changed by reading Ayn Rand or watching The Matrix. It's all about psychology and how we react to information. It's NOT unique to christianity.

They make their religion as a balence being in which one must try to

out weigh the bad with the good in hopes of maybe being accepted by

their God. Also it seems the Gods I know of most are not Gods of mersy

but of revenge, always out to get the humans. Thus why the structured

religion is needed along with certain sacrifices like paying debt or

bowing down x amount of times a day, and perhaps with gifts of many

items.

You have NO education of comparative religion.. stop there please.

Grant it, I do not speak on this subject in a mindset where I got it

all figured out as I know about Christianity but not so much about many

other religions.

exactly

This is where Jesus is different. First, unlike most cultures, we

believe in One God only (via the Godhead -- The Father, Son, and Holy

Ghost) and we believe Jesus came down and took human form to take the

punishment, the curse of which was brought on with the sin of Adam,

resulting in death and suffering due to sin in the world, away. In other

words, all creation has a curse. That curse is a selfish heart and the

results from. This can be seen in babies. We are born with a thought

process that the world revilves around self. Often later when we realize

we are not in control we look for some type of God for security. This

is found more often than not, though of course, many are raised in one

religion or another.

The trinity is not supported by

the Bible. Child psychology is also not your forte. Babies are not

evil... sheesh. Adam.. oh crikey. Yup, it's moral to punish someone who

had NO KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. You can not make a informed choice

without knowledge.. you can't CHOOSE between good and evil if you don't

know what they are. Jesus is not unique by the way.

http://www.religious...rg/xmas_sel.htm

In other religions, from what I know, because there is no cure for sin,

and no payment to justify for, the only hope is not to piss God off too

much and if we do enough good or meditate enough or bow down enough

maybe just maybe we can work ourselves into heaven with the balencing

system, not understanding that even one sin is one sin too many and the

curse is forever present.

Again.. you have NO understanding

of other religions or philosophies. You don't meditate to appease the

gods.. Buddhism in particular has no deity. Heaven doesn't even exist in

some religions. Becoming a better person is the basis of most systems..

and a worthy goal - in itself. You don't need a god for that.

When Jesus died, He made away for us to go to heaven. He was perfect

thus the only sacrifice that would work. No other God has paid the price

for our sin. Further more, though we act differently because Jesus

lives inside of us and changes our hearts and our attitudes if allowed,

there is no payment that we must make except to live a life of

thanksgiving to the One Who saved us. This is not works but a new way of

living with the blessed Holy Spirit guiding our way. If we live by the

Spirit we are no longer under the law. You see, Jesus makes us free from

all sin. No other god has that power.

Again, where is heaven? You DON'T act differently - there is no evidence to suggest christians are better people, or more blessed.

Now when I refere to dead Gods I most often refere to the prophets who

god went through to start their religion who has died or meaning gods

made of wood or other such things. A god that is made by humans cannot

be a living god, let alone a god, seeing that God is the Creater. This

is not to say that many do not believe in a living God. Roman did many

moons ago. In fact, they believed in so many no one could could keep

them straight.

Please go to religioustolerance.org and educate yourself on the worlds religions.. please. At least start there.

Does the God you believe in and worship give you peace inside? Does

peace like a river flow from your veins? Does joy unspeakable come from

your heart and mouth? Does your God make you want to shout for joy. Does

your God live inside of you and direct your every path. The more I

think of how many times God has saved my butt or how many times things

that looked like they would all fall apart came together after a feeling

of my prayer being answered in advance.

Actually I'm more peaceful now

than I was as a christian. If you really believe this then it would

follow that those who don't have god 'directing' their lives would have

worse lives. Sorry, but that's not the case.

You see, when we say a living God, we mean a God in which day after

day, week after week, month after month, we can see Him at work in our

lives and in the world around us. Each day He draws closer to us. Each

day He becomes more and more apart of you. It is only by remembering the

goodness of God in the past that we can trust God through our test.

This was the problem in part for the Israelites. History is indeed a

great lesson. It is interesting many claim Christianity was a Greek

branch off when the Greek was not even an established nation for many a

moons after the Israelites came on the scene.

What? Are you really that

ignorant? oh crap.. timelines again. Judaism was HELLENIZED by

christianity, no one ever said it came from the Greek religion. The

Greeks were late-comers to this history but they didn't come AFTER the

Hebrews - they were contemporary, But ALL the other civilizations were

not. Sumeria, Babylonia, Akkadia, Egypt, Phoenecia, etc... predate the

Israelites by at the very least a thousand years.. closer to 2 thousand

in some instances. PLEASE learn some history. Here is a good start. http://www.uncp.edu/...ancient_civ.htm

Now it may be said not everyone thinks atonement is a must for sin, but

if not, what do you have? If one thinks this earth is unfair or bad any

other place in the future that has sin allowed i it cannot be any better

so unless one has no hope for a future past this life than atonement

for sin is a must unless one would want to live in this world of

suffering for ever. I know I do not.

Is your life a vale of tears? I thought you just said you have unspeakable joy? You are contradicting yourself.
The joy is in richest unknown and peace from within. It is not of this world.

I'm a pretty happy person, and I have inner peace. Whence does this come from?

Does your religion give you what you long for? Does your god show

himself real to you? Has your god or religion changed your life in an

over whelming postitive way?

No. But learning the truth has. Life is much better now.

Like I would like to say all Christians walk the walk (as I should do

better myself at times) just as I would like all doctors to walk the

talk but we are all human for sure. Perfection as humans is a impossible

task but forgiveness and a changed heart and a direct pass to God is

very possible.

A get out of jail free card? Bought with innocent blood?... no thanks. I will accept responsibility for myself.

Thank you for asking your question and feel free to expound upon your belief.

First Bill, I do thank you for your question. That is a hard question

to ask. You see, I have doubted God many times in the 15 plus years of

being a Christian though less now than ever before based on the miracles

He has done in my life and all the ways and times He has shown Himself

to be true to me. It is kind of like asking me to try to pretent my

mother was not born or I do not live on planet earth. You see, during my

questioning God I certainly looked on the other side of things for

quite a while. Fact is, I use to be quite rebellious.

You have deceived yourself.

and NO, you didn't question anything - that is obvious by your decided

lack of knowledge. Stop lying. Yes, understand that we can't choose to

believe either... same same.

But please understand, I could be wrong, but I would say most of us,

no matter how hard we try, can never be truly nutral as we all have

preconceived ideas before hand. I can promise, as I always have, that I

will try to keep an open mind. When I am proven wrong I admit it, as I

had to do even upon this very posting. However, the thing you ask of me

is truly not possible. If I could be honest with you and tell you

differently I would. I think we all come to the table with atleast what

we believe we will see as the truth.

This is good to know... truth however has nothing to do with what we believe, or want to believe. It just is.. like facts. It's rarely comfortable... and I think many of us have paid some heavy prices for the truth.

With all due respect, it would be like me asking you to come to the

table believing that there is a God and that He did in fact create the

world and everything in it. I am sorry my friend. I will not lie

intentally to you.

No.. you still don't get it.. we all DID believe at one time. Deeply. We believed just like you do now...

we were 'saved' and had the holy spirit and all of that. We've been on

your side of the fence... we said the exact things you do, felt all

those feelings, etc.. etc.. etc.. Please understand that we

aren't ignorant of your beliefs, we know them all too well - we lived

them. Our biases were yours. Read the testimonies... there's a whole lot

of pain there. And a whole lot of difficult honesty.





I will be looking further into other religions thus I can speak with a little more knowledge after the fact



                            Edited by Ravenstar, 22 February 2013 - 10:52 AM.

You ignored some of my harder questions. You did not provide evidence for any of your claims.

March 1, 2013

Just looking at the green comments in the above posts and it's clear the Stranger is being willfully ignorant here. He is talking about events that never happened as if they are evidence for more events that never happened.

There was no Noah so there was no Noah's time. However we do know quite a lot about the Earth at the time 5,000 to 12,000 years ago. We can track the weather for every single year. We have very good data. Noah can't be found because he was never real. However thousands of species were real. They didn't die out due to a global flood.

There was no people of Noah's day. They were just as real as Tinker Bell, Peter Pan and Neverland.

"What made you begain to doubt?"

Reading the Bible. Specifically the conflict between the Bible and Trinity.

". . . they were all looking at sites in which came from Roman Catholic tradition rather than the word . . . "

The "Word" came from RCC tradition.

"It is believed . . ."

Your religious belief is not evidence. Do you realize that Paul wrote his letters before the four gospels were invented? Paul had a different gospel message and Paul probably would have called the gospel writers "false teachers". You Christians don't even know the first thing about your Bible because you read it wrong. You presume it is the Word of God and that it's apparent conflicts are the reader's weakness. In fact they are flaws in the Bible itself which is the word of mere men, uninspired men at that.

"No disrespect, but to me it is as letting kids raise themselves. Kids need parents for learning and structure. That is how I see humans with God."

Then God is the worse parent ever. He is just not there. And the kids all argue about "what God really said" in God's absence. Just face the fact. Humans make up gods. It is what we do. That is why every culture had a Jesus (good deity) and a Yahweh (evil deity).

"You say you believed yourself before. Did this change your life? I am convinced you can talk to any Chrstian and they will tell you the before and after life with Jesus Christ."1

Yeah while they suffer from the delusion they actually believe it is good for them. But then when they really study their Bible they will discover the truth and deconvert. Then they will realize how much Christianity has harmed them. The delusion took away 35 years of my life that I will never get back. Now my life sucks because I was too busy serving an imaginary friend to make something of myself. The best way to turn a kid into a loser is to brainwash him into thinking a race is actually a play. Tell him to sit back, relax and watch the story unfold. Next thing he knows he just lost the race because he was suppose to be doing something else when he was trying to enjoy a play that doesn't exist because the play's producer is imaginary.

March 1, 2013

On the subject of Noah's flood, I'd just like to point out an interesting division God makes in the animal kingdom... post-Flood.

Genesis 9: 1-6, NIV

1.Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.

²The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands.

³Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
⁴“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

⁵And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

⁶“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made mankind.

So, it seems that God will hold every animal on this list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater ...that kills a human, accountable to him for shedding human blood. Meanwhile, every other animal is not accountable to God.

Accountability to God?

So if an animal follows it's God-given instincts and sheds human blood - that animal is to be held accountable to God?

If it kills a human - God will demand an accounting from that animal for acting in accordance with the nature He gave it?

Hmmm... at least God is being consistent here.

Just as He creates human 'objects of wrath' who are predestined by Him to suffer eternally for the actions He decided they would carry out, before they were born, so it is with certain man-eating animals. He will hold them accountable for doing what He programmed them to do.

Unless, of course, Genesis 9:5 means that certain man-eating animals have minds and souls and can therefore be held accountable and judged for their free-willed actions, just as we humans will be?

(Bloody) food for thought!

BAA.

March 1, 2013

BAA, I thought you were giving up?

Commit, man, commit!

March 1, 2013

You see Deconverted, I've finally arrived at the conclusion that the Stranger does not want to and will never change. He does not want to and will not learn. He does not want to and will not do accept anything that conflicts with his set-in-stone beliefs. You'd have thought that I'd have wised up sooner, wouldn't you? But that's me... hopelessly optimistic, to the point of stupidity.

Anyway, this conclusion explains why I answered SquareOne's posts in the way I did. I messaged him privately first, to let him on what I planned to do and he gave me the thumbs up to do it. So, I stepped into the Stranger's shoes and replied to SquareOne to demonstrate just how morally bankrupt his brand of Christianity really is. From Ravenstar's and your reactions, it looks like I succeeded.

But now I must ask you two questions.

Are you still living with your family?

And, if I give you the information you ask for, how do you plan to use it?

I hope you appreciate my desire for caution here.

All the best,

BAA.

BAA,

I live with my wife and two kids...thankfully my wife doesn't really think too much about her faith (she is still a Christian). She is more of an emotional Christian (at least, that is what I call it). She rarely asks the question "why" about anything, let alone her faith and religion...I think she believes mainly because she was raised that way and her faith was basically told/taught to her. The family members that do "get into it" with me about religion, are members I don't live with. Any counterpoint you offer to your post would be mostly for me to consider and think about, but I also would like to share it with others in the hope that maybe...just maybe...something I say to them might cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Now, I completely understand your description of the Stranger with his lack of budging on his belief...no matter how reasonable, rational, or logical the contrary ideas are. I too have been finally learning that it just doesn't matter what I say to Christians...they will believe no matter what unfortunately. The tiny bit of "hope" I have for them stems from the fact that someone kept talking to me about my faith and posed questions to me I couldn't answer. As I started to investigate, I found that it was all a sham (that's a huge over simplification of my deconversion process!). Bun since it happened to me...maybe I could be a catalyst for someone else that I care about in helping them shed their faith too. However, that gets into another separate topic of why exactly I want to be a catalyst for them shedding their faith. I've been going through that question and my answers a great deal lately, and I find that while it's completely frustrating to be so misunderstood by Christians, trying to talk rationally and logically to them is useless (as you have found out with the Stranger). I might as well beat my head against a brick wall. I simply struggled with being able to hold back my views and "fight" for what I believe. The Christians always seem to take the offense with me, and I am tired of being on the defensive. Really what I need to do is just shut up and move on, but I feel like I still need to defend myself when their attacks come (or, change the role and occasionally be on the offensive).

I completely understand that you have a history in this thread with the Stranger. I know the description about good with relation to how the Christians view God was just your attempt to explain what they think (and not intended to give your views on the topic). I could really relate to how you explained it so clearly and accurately. I was just hoping that maybe you had another post somewhere with the counterpoint. It's probably a lenghty response, so I undersand if you don't want to take the time to do it here. I just assumed you may have posted/written about it in the past.

Thanks for your response!

March 2, 2013

Not only is Stranger dangerously deluded, he's hopelessly uneducated about his own disgusting, vile sham of a holy book. Here is a link if he's genuinely curious about what his loving, all-powerful, all-benevolent god says about rape, just as a starter course.

Stranger, your god could have found some way of stopping the barbarity and cruelty of his era. You, being a clearly-less-than-intelligent person, might not be capable of figuring out a method, but I already have offered one way of doing it: He could have fucking well TOLD people to stop doing it. You're saying your god was constrained by people of the era and awww, poor widdle gawd that he is, he just couldn't find the right way to stop the objectification and ownership of half the fucking human race. Poor widdle gawd. He drowned the whole goddamned world in a snit, but couldn't tell people "oh hey, why don't you stop raping women and let them have equal say in government?" Your god is a pissant, a mewling child of a tyrant, if he couldn't even do that little bit. And yet here you are trying to excuse him, like the enabler you are.

Oh yeah, and YOU ARE STILL EXCUSING RAPE. RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE. RAPEY RAPE. Republican-style, let's argue about terminology RAPE. THE FUCKING RAPE OF CHILDREN, you despicable, depraved, broken-inside asshole. RAPE. WOMEN RAPED IN WAR. WOMEN RAPED IN THE FIELDS. Women having to worry about crying out enough to make everybody believe it was "real" rape--and two thousand years later we're still facing men who judge women who get raped for not fighting enough because of that indoctrination of our collective psyche. Women dying in childbirth because YOUR GOD cursed them, let's not forget either, and women handed to their new owners like cattle in marriage deals. But RAPE is the main problem here. You are trying to logic yourself into a situation where it's okay that your god not only allowed rape but made allowances that, in your mind, make it totally cool that the Israelites RAPED WOMEN AND GOD LET IT HAPPEN.

I'm not going to waste further words on a person who is this thick-headed and incapable of logic, reason, and simple humanity. You are an indecent pervert who is not fit to share my online world, and if you are what God wants in his heaven, I declare here and now that God can fuck himself if he thinks I'll *ever* want to go anywhere near followers like you.

Your religion is disgusting and repellent. It cannot fade into irrelevance quickly enough for humankind.

March 3, 2013

Stranger, I see you've moved and may not read this for a while, but I do want to respond to one thing. I suspect that eventually you'll be back and see it.

the Christian doctrine on once saved always saved is not biblicak.
Really? Do you not remember last year when I posted two things (either in this thread or the other one we were debating in) that I had written when I was a Christian and you praised them and said I could've been a pastor? One of those was on the very subject of eternal security, showing that it is biblical. Why are you now saying it's not biblical when you so enthusiastically supported that piece? Here it is again, to refresh your memory: I apoligize. I do not remember much of this conversation but it was possible I was just commenting on your insight and not your doctrine as it seemed pointless. I have been against this view for a long time.

>

Can A Christian Lose His/Her Salvation?

The Bible tells us that we were saved by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8). We were buried with Christ through baptism into death in order that we may "live a new life" (Romans 6:4) and that "the body of sin might be done away with" (Romans 6:6). And, since "our old self was crucified with Him" (Romans 6:6), we have been "freed from sin" (Romans 6:7). "Since Christ was raised from the dead, He cannot die again" (Romans 6:9), and we are to, "in the same way," count ourselves "dead to sin but alive to God" (Romans 6:11), and to not let sin master us, because we are "not under law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14). Christ came to "set us free" from the law (Galatians 5:1).

We also read that no one who continues in a lifestyle of sin has "either seen Him or known Him" (1 John 3:6). the KJV uses "cannot". This word can also mean cannot with choice, as, should not or not normal under the situation. This can be seen in 2 Peter 2:14; 1 John 5:18; Ezera 10:13; and Deuteronomy 24:2. In 1 John 5:15, we can see clearly without full understanding we might ask God for a jet and expect to receive it. After all, God never destroys free will. It also needs to be understood in the context of 1 John 5:16 (sin that leads to death) and the passage of John 15 where choice is ours, even upon choosing. "We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" (Romans 6:2) "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him" (1 John 3:9). Same principle here. By our new nature, a repeated and proud sinning goes against that new nature, not that it can not be done.These are clearly referring to a deliberate continuance in sin. Of course, this is not to say that Christians never commit any sin, for even the Apostle Paul had struggles with sin. It is significant to note, though, that the sins he struggled with were not things he wanted to do, but rather were things he actually hated (Romans 7:15). Why did he hate sin? It was his desire to please God, for he was "crucified with Christ" and he no longer lived, but Christ lived in him (Galatians 2:20).

Though we struggle with sin, we are clothed in Christ's righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30) and thus are "made perfect forever" (Hebrews 10:14).He has perfected, not that He has made us choose. He has made away to be perfected forever. This righteousness is "by faith from first to last" (Romans 1:17), meaning that it begins and finishes with faith rather than works. Since Jesus is the "Author and Perfecter of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2), it is God who makes us "stand firm in Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:21). The believer is marked in Christ with the "seal" (denoting ownership) of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), who is a "deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (Ephesians 1:14).deposite is the word used here, and a great story is used, with the root of this Greek word, in Genesis 38:17-20. We must follow through on our end. In the same book of Eph. in 5:3-7 Paul makes clear those who proudly sin will not get to heaven. While it is true the Holy Spirit contunues to reside inside of us, we can grieve EPH 4:30 and we can put out the Spirits fire Isaiah 63:10. Infact, punishment must be given for those who never come back to God HEB. 10:29 It relates well with MATT 12:31-32 and REV 13:5

Jesus Himself said, "Whoever hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned" (John 5:24).Believes, a continues believing, of which follows a following of As such, eternal life is something that the true believer presently possesses, and one cannot come to an end of something that is eternal. Jesus also said that those to whom He has given eternal life "shall never perish" (John 10:28). His sheep that FOLLOW HimHe said that His sheep listen to His voice and follow Him, and He knows those who belong to Him (John 10:27). Indeed, nothing in all creation can separate true Christians from "the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39).True, nothing can separate us from the love of God on this earth. That does not mean we need to give love back. John 14:23; James 1:12 and our sins separate us from God Isaiah 59:2 and Amos 3:3

Scripture tells us that "those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son" (Romans 8:29), and those who were predestined He also called, justified and glorified (Romans 8:30). Therefore, we can say with confidence that the believer is a "new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17) Paul goes as far as to say that we who are born again are already "seated with [Christ] in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 2:6).Predestined, knowing all who will follow Him until the end, also knowing those who will not.

Being this new creation clothed in Christ's righteousness, our faith requires action because "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" (James 2:17). If it really is faith, won't it be evidenced in actions? "Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matthew 7:17-18). A true, regenerated believer is the only one who can really, from the heart, bear good (Godly) fruit. In fact, our whole purpose is "to do good works" (Ephesians 2:10) and to "bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4).But if not we will be cut down and burned

Although some say they know someone who used to be a Christian but now isn't, the Bible tells us that "if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19). There is a clear distinction between those who "shrink back and are destroyed" and those who "believe and are saved" (Hebrews 10:39). If we do not "hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first," then we have not "come to share in Christ" (Hebrews 3:14).This clearly illistrates they at one time were considered to be brethren and sister. This also can be seen in 2 Corinthians 13:2-6; 1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 1:15; James 5:19-20; 2 Peter 2:14-15, 20-22; 3 John 9-10

Jesus plainly said, "First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean" (Matthew 23:26). And again, the Bible tells us, "No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him" (1 John 3:6), speaking of a deliberate (defiant) continuance in sin.

The problem with modern churchianity is that we seem to have forgotten the true meaning of repentance. We seem to think that quoting a "sinner's prayer" and promising to do better will save us. However, our focus is on us praying and on us doing, but not really on what Christ has already done. But Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44).

When we truly begin to grasp just who Christ is -- God the Son (Hebrews 1:8) -- and the fact that any righteous act of ours is but "filthy rags" to God (Isaiah 64:6), we begin to realize that we are nothing! The "poor in spirit" are the ones to whom is given "the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3). We must realize how spiritually bankrupt we are before God (Luke 18:10-14). How can we try to stand on anything we've done, even if it is reciting a "sinner's prayer"? Without Christ's sacrifice, such a prayer wouldn't do anything!

Indeed, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God knows who are His, and they are forever His. As the picture Jesus gave of a Shepherd and His sheep (John 10:11), so is the body of Christ. The sheep are totally dependent on the Shepherd (John 10:5), and no one can snatch them out of His hand (John 10:28). When one wanders, He goes and finds it (Matthew 18:12)! And when He finds it, it will follow Him (John 10:27).

In the one who is truly born again, "God's seed remains; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.... Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God" (1 John 3:9-10). "Everyone born of God overcomes the world" (1 John 5:4). God's grace doesn't run out, but it will change us.

Of course, there are a few passages that Christians use to counter these, but they typically have contextual explanations that fit rather well in the doctrine of eternal security (or Perseverance of the Saints). If any do not, then we have another contradiction within the already inconsistent Bible.

At any rate, I hope your move went well and that you're doing fine. Take care....

Ezekiel 18 makes this doctrine very clearly false. Hebrews chapter 6 and 10 also do the same.

In saying that, thank you for your best wishes and I am looking forward to talking with you again.

Greetings, Stranger. Did you get a new computer?

Let me start off by saying that I've moved on and honestly have zero interest in holding discussions with someone who has zero desire to follow the evidence where it leads. Thus, I'm not going to bother picking apart a bunch of flaws in your arguments like I used to do. I'm rather busy, and it's not worth my time, because you've demonstrated that you're simply going to continue to peddle what you want to believe instead of looking at things objectively.

Thus, all I will say about your above comments are here: I already acknowledged that there are passages that Christians cite to claim that salvation can be lost, and you did exactly that. Many of them can be shown to fit with the belief that salvation can't be lost, though. Those that won't fit simply demonstrate how the Bible conflicts with itself. Also, your word games demonstrate how many Christians are prone to trying to change the meaning of their precious Bible when the meaning doesn't fit their preconceived doctrinal positions.

At any rate, the issue of losing salvation really doesn't matter all that much to me anymore, nor did it matter much when I posted the above. I only posted it to show that you're wrong to claim that there's no biblical support for eternal security. I've been on both sides of that debate when I was a Christian, and the subject didn't have much bearing on my loss of faith. Salvation itself is a myth based on flawed texts anyway, so whether or not one can lose a condition that doesn't really exist is a moot point.

Perhaps I should remind you that one issue that *was* a major player in my loss of faith is the fact that New Testament authors repeatedly fabricated prophetic fulfillments by taking Old Testament texts completely out of context. I even posted (more than once) a lengthy and very detailed piece explaining these problems, and you never once attempted to address it. You consistently avoided the issue like a plague. Your avoidance of that topic and the flimsy and completely refuted apologetics arguments that you keep arguing in circles with on other issues demonstrate that discussion with you is futile. That's sad, because I think you're probably a genuinely nice person.

Others here have recently handed you a lot of info and solid reasoning that completely shatters your position. So, with me not having the time or interest I once had, and you having a handful of others to debate with, I don't think I'll continue discussing religion with you. Have fun and take care....

March 3, 2013

Heh, in light of all the negative comments about Stranger (none of which I can legitimately contest), I do want to say a bit more about my motivations here.

I realize that Stranger isn't going to be swayed by our arguments. Oh yes, having been deluded by Christianity myself, as indeed we all have, I am well aware that facts cannot persuade a Christian that his beliefs are false. But Stranger is telling us that we will go to hell if we don't believe in Jesus, and I hope to impress upon him the full implications of this. He is telling us that we will burn forever in a lake of fire if we don't abandon our current ways of living and convert to evangelical Christianity. And it is not as though our lifestyles are all particularly heinous by Christian standards. Oh yes, I am not given to the use of illicit drugs, theft, use of foul language, or other things that Christians deem "sinful." But since Christians are obsessed with sex, I feel compelled to point out that I myself have never had sex outside of marriage. And guess what? This has everything to do with my Indian upbringing, and nothing to do with Christianity. I point this out not because I think it is particularly virtuous (I don't think there's anything wrong with having all the pre-marital sex you want), but because it's basically the trump card of righteousness in the eyes of evangelical Christians. And yet Christians would condemn me to eternal hell for not believing in Jesus. I could live a perfectly virtuous life in the eyes of Christians, but unless I convert to Christianity I am damned.

I hope Stranger understands what he's saying, here. He claims that every one of us will burn forever in a lake of fire because we don't say that Jesus, a supposedly historical figure - according to Christians - is Lord of our lives. Mind you, our personal conduct is irrelevant here; the Christians are asking us to specifically confess Jesus' Lordship with our mouths, as prescribed in Romans 10. I hope Stranger will contemplate the implications of eternal immolation. Anyone who's been burned by so much as a candle flame knows the excruciating pain associated with burning (aside: the word "excruciating" derives from the word referring to crucifixion). Stranger's religious beliefs require him to believe that this fate awaits us continuously for all eternity.

As we ex-Christians well know, Christianity requires one to only associate with other Christians. But I'm sure Stranger has at least a few acquaintances who are not Christians. And I'm sure most of these are reasonable people, no different than any other people. But since they aren't Christians, he must believe that they will go to hell and burn in agony for all eternity. I hope he thinks about the implications of this. I hope he considers a simple candle flame, and contemplates the possibility of exposing his finger to it for a full minute (I also hope he doesn't actually attempt this!). And then I hope he realizes that nobody deserves this sort of pain, distributed across their entire body, for the whole of eternity. That isn't God's just wrath, it is divine sadism.

Yes, Stranger has been on this thread for years without stepping back from his position. But I was a Christian and embraced evil Christian ideas for six years, and I came back from them. And among others on this forum, I was probably a Christian for the least time! I hope that Stranger, like the rest of us, will see the evil of the position he is holding to. I don't think he's an evil person, I just think that he hasn't fully contemplated the logical end of his beliefs. If we can do so, perhaps he can too.

March 3, 2013

I am well aware that facts cannot persuade a Christian that his beliefs are false.

With some that is true, but it was facts that persuaded me. I didn't want to give up Christianity, but as the fact that it's a lie became clear to me, I had no way to continue believing it.

For clarification, though, it was with my own personal studies that I started seeing the enormous flaws in Christianity. I was never confronted by a skeptic with any strong arguments, so I can't say for sure how I would have responded. I suspect that initially I would have had a barrier much like Stranger's, but if I had been hit with as many strong points as he's been hit with, I have to think that my eyes would have been opened in less time than Stranger's been debating here (counting the long hiatus, of course). After all, it took less time than that from when I first started seeing problems until I realized that it was an untenable position, and that was without having people putting more problems on the table than I had noticed myself during that time. On the other hand, discovering the problems on our own is a bit different from being challenged by an outsider, so I honestly can't know what would have happened in that case.

March 3, 2013

Thirdly, for those who were to become wives the Israelites had a seven day cleaning ritual outside the camp, plus an allowence of 30 days was given to the woman for grieving, and if the then husband found her unlikable he had to let her go. This means worst case, there was a 37 day waiting period, and this by the way does not include the traditions of marriage, thus the period of sexual intercourse could of been quite lengthy.

And you think this is good?

So I murder your father and your mother, and you, and then take your virgin sister - but let her grieve for 37 days - and then she has to be married to me (your killer) for the rest of her life.

You think that is moral and good?

I don't believe you.

I think this is one of the most important questions for Stranger to address, and to do so while honestly looking through the lens of justice instead of the lens of indoctrination to uphold obligatory ancient texts.

March 3, 2013

As for changing one's doctrinal commitments: in college I wrote a paper in a medieval philosophy class trying to reconcile St. Thomas' position on predestination and God's primary causality with free will. I was drawn to the topic because what I had read of Thomistic arguments threatened my Arminian presuppositions about God's foreknowledge being compatible with creatures' free will. About two weeks after I handed in the paper I realized that the predestinarian crowd had the biblical position, and I found myself a Calvinist. I wasn't ready to ditch protestantism, though. Two years later in graduate school I lived in a Christian student residence in which there were some Eastern Orthodox students, and I also met some Catholics on campus. I came to realize that Protestantism was not the only form of committed Christianity, and I wondered, first, why these other students didn't just see that protestantism was more scriptural, and then, second, why the protestants spoke as though the Holy Spirit had been largely asleep from, say, the time of Constantine to the time of Luther (with a few glimmers of action in people like Jan Hus). Once I started down the road of following the question, what's the justification for the Reformation (and especially, where does scripture articulate the "scripture alone" principle -- [answer: nowhere]), after about three years I "submitted to Rome."

Later on of course I realized the falsity of the entire system. [Oh well, I was never really a true Scotsman after all.]

So being confronted with facts and arguments can lead someone to confront his/her belief set and realize contradictions among those beliefs.

Then there's the other approach, to spin all the inconvenient stuff so as to gloss over contradictions by redefining words, ignoring counterexamples, moving the goalposts, begging the question, etc. etc. If you can do this skilfully enough you can make a career of it, as Wm. Lane Craig has done.

March 3, 2013

ficino: I also came to the conclusion, after reading Calvin, that what he said did make sense with scripture. At one point I almost went into the Presbyterian Church. I did visit one, and the people were so unwecloming that I only went there two or three times. I went to some lectures by R.C. Sproul as well. What he said made good sense also, if you are just basing Christianity on scripture alone. However, I started thinking about the limited atonement and sort of just became horrified by it. It was worse than the Baptist church! I searched through protestantism trying to find something better. Then I settled on the Episcopal church for awhile. I thought that the ritual of the eucharist was what I had been missing, but the stark contrast between the seriousness of the ritual and the very casual, if not flippant, attitude toward the whole religious life, and the idea they had of reading one part of scripture and ignoring others, began to get on my nerves. The hypocrisy of the whole thing, in other words.

I also studied Eastern Orthodoxy by visiting a Russian Orthodox church and doing a lot of reading. I was fascinated by it, particularly the icons, but ultimately found it to be as unsatisfactory as all the rest of Christianity.

March 3, 2013

Thirdly, for those who were to become wives the Israelites had a seven day cleaning ritual outside the camp, plus an allowence of 30 days was given to the woman for grieving, and if the then husband found her unlikable he had to let her go. This means worst case, there was a 37 day waiting period, and this by the way does not include the traditions of marriage, thus the period of sexual intercourse could of been quite lengthy.

And you think this is good?

So I murder your father and your mother, and you, and then take your virgin sister - but let her grieve for 37 days - and then she has to be married to me (your killer) for the rest of her life.

You think that is moral and good?

I don't believe you.

I think this is one of the most important questions for Stranger to address, and to do so while honestly looking through the lens of justice instead of the lens of indoctrination to uphold obligatory ancient texts.

The only way to get Christians to see it for what it is is to depict it in art. If some guy painted a picture of Yahweh enjoying the view while a Jewish army rapes a neighboring city then all the Christians would be upset about it. But they would claim the painting "ignores the context" of that day. Rape excuses have to have a special context that is laid out on Sunday morning.

March 3, 2013

I'm on the cusp of understanding something important (at least to me) about the Christian dismissal of their own evil under the excuse of "context." I did it too--assuming that there were some relevant cultural elements I was missing that would make X atrocity okay, or some theological point that maybe I didn't understand or know yet that made Y barbarity acceptable. Christians all do it; they have to, to maintain mental wholeness in the face of sanity-bending cognitive dissonance. One time I told an atheist (who'd just challenged me to explain God's mercy regarding a friend of hers who'd recently gotten a post-rape back-alley abortion in an anti-choice state and died of complications) that I didn't understand wholly why God did the things he did sometimes, but I trusted that it'd all be made clear one day in heaven. She did not take that chirpy non-explanation well at all, and I didn't understand why until I began to emerge from my religious fog. (ohgodwhy.jpg)

What's funny is that a lot of things Christians insist are always crystal-clear, black-and-white this-or-that actually do have context: Premarital sex. Reproductive choice. Divorce. What the Bible's writers meant about that whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing. Christians pick and choose what needs context to put into place, and what they think doesn't. Anything that might make their faction more powerful? Black and white, no context needed. Anything that might make their religion or they themselves look weak, well WE JUST DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY. It's all about controlling information and feeding it carefully to sheep who are conditioned to just eat the cereal offered and not ask questions. I know; I was there.

Add to this Christianity's deep dislike of the entire concept of women's consent (which directly challenges the Judeo-Christian ideal of male supremacy and privilege) and you get a culture that actually encourages its people to figure out ways to explain away Yahweh's constant insistence on allowing and making provision for his people to rape women and treat them like livestock.

That's why it's important to keep hammering the truth home to people who are stupid enough to speak such idiocy in their out-loud voice.

THERE IS NEVER ANY JUSTIFICATION OR CULTURAL ALLOWANCE THAT MAKES RAPE OKAY.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOW GOD/JESUS ALLOWED WOMEN TO BE TREATED IN THE BIBLE.

AN ALL-POWERFUL GOD IS EITHER NOT CONSTRAINABLE BY "CULTURE" OR NOT ACTUALLY ALL-POWERFUL.

WHY YES, I *CAN* JUDGE YOUR GOD. AND HE SUCKS.

March 5, 2013

Hello again Deconverted and thank you for your patience.

BAA,

I live with my wife and two kids...thankfully my wife doesn't really think too much about her faith (she is still a Christian). She is more of an emotional Christian (at least, that is what I call it). She rarely asks the question "why" about anything, let alone her faith and religion...I think she believes mainly because she was raised that way and her faith was basically told/taught to her.

Thanks for putting me in the picture about your home life and thanks for appreciating my desire for caution.

Now, it would be remiss of me not to respond in like manner. After all, treating each other as equals is the beginning of trust and mutual respect, wouldn't you say? My partner Maureen comes from an Irish-American family and is long past being a lapsed Catholic, now being an Atheist in all but name. Yet, just like your wife, there are religious aspects of her upbringing that she never questions and religious behaviors that are almost 'automatic' for her. So, I can relate to what you say - to a degree.

The family members that do "get into it" with me about religion, are members I don't live with. Any counterpoint you offer to your post would be mostly for me to consider and think about, but I also would like to share it with others in the hope that maybe...just maybe...something I say to them might cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Now, I completely understand your description of the Stranger with his lack of budging on his belief...no matter how reasonable, rational, or logical the contrary ideas are. I too have been finally learning that it just doesn't matter what I say to Christians...they will believe no matter what unfortunately. The tiny bit of "hope" I have for them stems from the fact that someone kept talking to me about my faith and posed questions to me I couldn't answer. As I started to investigate, I found that it was all a sham (that's a huge over simplification of my deconversion process!). Bun since it happened to me...maybe I could be a catalyst for someone else that I care about in helping them shed their faith too. However, that gets into another separate topic of why exactly I want to be a catalyst for them shedding their faith.

Well, as it happens D, I want to help people to shed their Christian faith too.

But how and where I do this differs somewhat from the scenarios you describe. Rather than discussing things face-to-face, with committed Christians, I've found that I can be of some help to those in the process of de-converting and who've come to this forum for help in doing so. One of the advantages I've found about doing so here is that it gives me the time I need to consider things and to respond at my pace - not the pace of a conversation with someone sitting across the table from me.

I've been going through that question and my answers a great deal lately, and I find that while it's completely frustrating to be so misunderstood by Christians, trying to talk rationally and logically to them is useless (as you have found out with the Stranger). I might as well beat my head against a brick wall. I simply struggled with being able to hold back my views and "fight" for what I believe. The Christians always seem to take the offense with me, and I am tired of being on the defensive. Really what I need to do is just shut up and move on, but I feel like I still need to defend myself when their attacks come (or, change the role and occasionally be on the offensive).

Your paragraph below is right on target, D.

I was putting myself into the Stranger's shoes and was giving an explanation of the Israelite vs. Midianite question from his Bible-literalist, Young Earth Creationist p.o.v. Before I went ahead and did so, I got the okay from SquareOne, so that I didn't put his nose out of joint. Having reached the end of my patience with the Stranger, I concluded that rational, reasoned argument and hard evidence would never have any effect upon him. But, if I were to show him the cruel and pitiless evil of his God, maybe that would have the desired effect? Even if it didn't and doesn't move him one inch, other (less-blinkered) members seemed to find it illuminating - so I'll probably do it again, when the occasion calls for it.

Now to my main point.

I'd never done this before in this forum... so the explanatory counterpoint you're looking for (sadly) doesn't exist.

In my experience, no Christian's ever been so stupid/stubborn/sly (please select which one/s you think are appropriate) as the Stranger. Over the years I've given to him and given and given again. Every effort I've made to instill even the most basic notion of critical thought in him, has been an abject failure. As I made clear in #2776, it just doesn't matter if he's too stupid, too stubborn or too sly, the end result is still the same - he just carries on as before.

His unfocused, rambling replies take no account of anything written for his benefit. It's as if, for him, the past doesn't exist as something he can learn from. So, when replying to us; in a given sentence he can acknowledge a point made to him, and yet contradict it, just a few words later - all the while, being blithely unaware of his error. We just get a loose, meandering stream of consciousness; devoid of analysis and critical thought.

This... is the context of my 'good' BibleGod posting, D.

It was the action of a man (me) at the end of his tether. A man forced to do it by the stupidity/stubborness/slyness (again, please select) of someone he'd tried to help, time and time again. A man driven to this kind of desperate measure by years of fruitless effort and wasted bandwidth. A man sucked dry of his goodwill and his tolerance by this bottomless pit calling itself the Stranger. So, Yes indeed! I do have a 'history' with the Stranger.

I completely understand that you have a history in this thread with the Stranger. I know the description about good with relation to how the Christians view God was just your attempt to explain what they think (and not intended to give your views on the topic). I could really relate to how you explained it so clearly and accurately. I was just hoping that maybe you had another post somewhere with the counterpoint. It's probably a lenghty response, so I undersand if you don't want to take the time to do it here. I just assumed you may have posted/written about it in the past.

Thanks for your response!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm... sorry, my friend. But that counterpoint doesn't exist.

I'm glad you could relate to my words in this thread and I'm also glad that others could too.

However, I'm open to any further ideas or thoughts you might have on this topic.

Thanks,

BAA.

March 5, 2013

BAA, can't say I blame you. I'm actually kind of glad Stranger showed up here so that I could crystallize some of my ideas regarding Christianity and "context." He did not accomplish his goal, namely making me realize his god was the correct one out of the unnumbered thousands, and his quirky interpretation of that god's sourcebook the one correct out of the shapeless tens of thousands of other interpretations of the same book. But just as I value your reasoned and calm smackdowns, I value Stranger's childish babbling because it helps me understand the religion's adherents better, and helps me hone my own arguments regarding it. If he is a Poe doing all the shit he does purely to make ex-Christians more certain of their choices, I must give props to the effort, though I'd like to mention that it's not necessary to go through the charade; we ex-Cers talk about theology and arguments against apologetics all the time without needing such deceptions.

March 6, 2013

This question of "Why do you remain a Christian?" has been very important to me lately. My wondering about this has been one reason that has kept me from abandoning my faith completely. For me, the issue is rather narrowly focused: why do people who have already given up even near-inerrancy continue to believe? Why the inerrantists believe doesn't concern me, because I can see they're wrong. But the fact that intelligent, thinking people who understand the problems of the Bible and Christian theology still believe in the basic Christian faith makes me want to be sure that I'm not missing something important.

I've asked a few of these people, some friends and some well-known Christians on the non-fundamentalist side, why they still believe, and I haven't gotten any convincing answers. The two main ones (besides silence) are (a) internal assurance and ( we don't start with the Bible, but we start with Christ (we're impressed by his life, we believe in the resurrection, we fall in love with him because he loves us ...). The internal assurance argument counts for nothing for me, since everyone has that to some degree. There is also the leap-of-faith option which might be true but is not really amenable to logical discussion.

The argument that we believe because we know or have known Christ may have more merit and seems to have a more solid heritage. I know that Christian Smith, in "Making the Bible Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture," wrestles with how Christians should relate to the Bible given the problems with the way Evangelicalism handles it. He does not claim to have an answer, but believes that we have to start with a Christ-centered reading. Apparently this was a big emphasis of Karl Barth as well, but I don't know his writing directly.

As promising as this might be for those trying to hold on to faith (and I'm only slowly drifting away from that position), it still begs the question of how we can know enough about Jesus to base all of Christianity on that foundation. The apologists have tried, but unsuccessfully. At best, for the sake of argument, one might say that they have shown that there is a 50-50 chance that the Gospel events are true in basic outline. They have shown, at best, that one might be able to believe the historical events without being irrational, but not that the historicity is compelling.

So back to the question, if there is anyone here who can offer an answer: why, once you recognize a fundamental problem of the historicity of the Bible, did/do you continue to believe?

March 7, 2013

I've asked a few of these people, some friends and some well-known Christians on the non-fundamentalist side, why they still believe, and I haven't gotten any convincing answers. The two main ones (besides silence) are (a) internal assurance and ( we don't start with the Bible, but we start with Christ (we're impressed by his life, we believe in the resurrection, we fall in love with him because he loves us ...). The internal assurance argument counts for nothing for me, since everyone has that to some degree. There is also the leap-of-faith option which might be true but is not really amenable to logical discussion.

Hello PithHelmet, I'll take a stab at commenting on your B above: B collapses into "starting with the Bible" and stands or falls with the Bible's historicity. Only from the Bible do we know about Jesus' life, resurrection, and about the attitudes attributed to him. Whatever other sources we have now do not have the status of independent, corroborating evidence.

March 7, 2013

Greetings, PithHelmet7.

Perhaps it's not my place to reply, since I'm not still a believer, but I thought I'd offer a few of my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

This question of "Why do you remain a Christian?" has been very important to me lately. My wondering about this has been one reason that has kept me from abandoning my faith completely. For me, the issue is rather narrowly focused: why do people who have already given up even near-inerrancy continue to believe? Why the inerrantists believe doesn't concern me, because I can see they're wrong. But the fact that intelligent, thinking people who understand the problems of the Bible and Christian theology still believe in the basic Christian faith makes me want to be sure that I'm not missing something important.

The same type of question could be asked of those of other faiths who don't take their sacred texts as inerrant, while recognizing certain problems, and yet continue to believe.

My impression is that it has a lot to do with emotional attachment. When I was coming to grips with the fact that I had been misled about the Bible (I was raised with inerrantism), I did briefly consider the possibility that the main gist of Christianity could still be true, despite the fact that the Bible has serious flaws. I wanted to continue believing, because it was all I had ever known, but the more liberal approach didn't set well with me either. You see, once the source text is known to be unreliable, then it loses all authority and we're basically left to pick and choose what we want from it. If we're picking and choosing what we want from the religion, then we're making up our own version. From there, if we're going to make up a religion based on picking what we like from the Bible, then it's all based on us. How reliable can that be?

I've asked a few of these people, some friends and some well-known Christians on the non-fundamentalist side, why they still believe, and I haven't gotten any convincing answers. The two main ones (besides silence) are (a) internal assurance and ( we don't start with the Bible, but we start with Christ (we're impressed by his life, we believe in the resurrection, we fall in love with him because he loves us ...). The internal assurance argument counts for nothing for me, since everyone has that to some degree. There is also the leap-of-faith option which might be true but is not really amenable to logical discussion.

I agree that the internal assurance argument is weak. People of all faiths have internal assurance, and yet they can't all be right.

Regarding the second claim, as much as they want to think that they're not starting with the Bible, they really are. Christ, his life, the resurrection and the love of Jesus are all concepts that are taken directly from the Bible. Without the Bible, those beliefs wouldn't exist. The very things that they hold so dear are based entirely on the source text that they acknowledge is erroneous and that they want to break from as the starting point.

The argument that we believe because we know or have known Christ may have more merit and seems to have a more solid heritage. I know that Christian Smith, in "Making the Bible Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture," wrestles with how Christians should relate to the Bible given the problems with the way Evangelicalism handles it. He does not claim to have an answer, but believes that we have to start with a Christ-centered reading. Apparently this was a big emphasis of Karl Barth as well, but I don't know his writing directly.

I haven't read C Smith or K Barth, but the idea that "we have to start with a Christ-centered reading" is still using an admittedly flawed source text. The Bible is important and has its place in academics, but the text is not at all a historically reliable source of information. Beyond that, if we know that it is flawed in what we can test, then how can we have any confidence that it's reliable on what we can't test? Doesn't it seem like an enormous leap of faith to jump to that?

As promising as this might be for those trying to hold on to faith (and I'm only slowly drifting away from that position), it still begs the question of how we can know enough about Jesus to base all of Christianity on that foundation. The apologists have tried, but unsuccessfully. At best, for the sake of argument, one might say that they have shown that there is a 50-50 chance that the Gospel events are true in basic outline. They have shown, at best, that one might be able to believe the historical events without being irrational, but not that the historicity is compelling.

I agree that the apologists have failed (although they unfortunately manage to keep many unsuspecting people buffaloed).

As far as there being "a 50-50 chance that the Gospel events are true in basic outline," I suppose that's true in so far as if you're looking at it like a toss of a coin. Heads, it's basically true, or tails, it's not basically true. In reality, it's not quite as simple as yes/no 50/50. The religious texts are known to be flawed and unreliable, and there are no nonreligious, actual historical accounts of the stories in the Gospels. What we have outside of the religious texts are very late references that come after Christianity had ample time to grow and start to become influential. The earliest of the nonreligious references (which are still way too late and not reliable) are very scant.

Considering the sheer lack of any solid and reliable information, the reality is that any attempt to construct a historical account of Jesus is incredibly speculative. I'm not saying that there couldn't have been a Jesus whom the stories are loosely based on, as it is entirely possible. However, we definitely don't have a "historical Jesus," because we have no historical record of this Jesus and, like I said previously, any attempt to arrive at a historical account of Jesus is highly speculative.

So back to the question, if there is anyone here who can offer an answer: why, once you recognize a fundamental problem of the historicity of the Bible, did/do you continue to believe?

The nature of this question is why I started off saying that it may not be my place to reply. For myself, I could not get past what seems to me to be a complete lack of real logic and reason in continuing to believe something so thoroughly rooted in a source text that is known to be flawed and unreliable.

At any rate, good luck as you work through everything and try to figure out what is really believable for you. Enjoy the journey ahead of you....

March 7, 2013

Hey Doc Pith.

Geezer started a thread a few days ago where some of us kicked around that question a bit. I don't think you're likely to get the thorough answers you might be looking for from our lot. You may want to PM Geezer for the name of that progressive message board that he mentioned in his OP in that thread and see what those folks have to say.

It sounds to me like you've already done a fair bit of due diligence on this issue and just aren't comfortable with the conclusions. I've been there myself, but you appear to be much more invested at this stage of your life. A more liberal form of Christianity may be the path of least resistance for you if you think you can be comfortable with that. I suspect you may be too intellectually honest to do that, otherwise you wouldn't have come this far. This is just my impression based solely on what you've written here and what I've read in your blog.

March 7, 2013

Ficino, yes, almost correct about the Bible being the only source. We do also have the origin of Christianity, which is often brought out as an argument that there has to be something substantive behind it, and the testimony of Paul, which while still technically "Bible" is generally thought to be basically authentic. Paul doesn't say much about the historical Jesus, though, and his arguments are based on personal revelation and rather unusual (to us) argumentation from the Hebrew scriptures.

Citsonga and Hymenaeus, thanks for your detailed comments. I agree with what you say. I may not have explained well in my first post, but I don't see as persuasive any of the grounds of belief I bring up, I'm just stating them as the rather unsatisfactory kinds of answers I've received so far. Hymenaeus, you're right that I don't see liberal Christianity as an option; it seems the worst of both worlds from the angle of truth-seeking, though I'm sure there are lots of benefits, too. Thanks for the link to Geezer's thread, too.

I certainly understand the subjective reasons for continuing to be a Christian in some sense. In fact, I've told a few people half-jokingly that I'm not only a failed Christian but a failed atheist, because I don't know that I can or want to undergo such a radical shift in identity at this stage in life. I've also suggested to some friends that it might not be a good idea to start a deep exploration of the roots of one's faith past a certain age. If there is some transcendent value of truth, maybe we have to say, "go for it." If our brains/psyche are evolutionarily adapted to find a model of the world, find a community, and stick with that, then is it still necessarily the case that finding truth is in the best interest of the individual's mental health?

March 7, 2013

Hey Dr. Pith, just a quick response for now: I think what you say in #2798 pretty much collapses into your earlier A and B. There are extra-biblical traditions, which I'm sure you know, like the story about Peter's meeting Jesus and saying "Lord, where are you going?" - i.e. Domine Quo Vadis - giving rise to two sites outside the Roman walls where this was supposed to have occurred. But documentation for these extra-biblical traditions tends to be as late as the NT documents themselves or later. It may boil down to how we read Paul's lines in I Corinthians, which some people argue are an ancient creed, and stuff he says in Galatians. But that's still the NT and still, as you say, the work of a guy whose basis was really his own visions and not personal acquaintance with the flesh and blood jesus.

I want to hear about your pith helment!

Why Do You Remain A Christian?

Recommended Posts

raoul

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ravenstar

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SquareOne

Link to comment

Share on other sites

deconverted

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Akheia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bhim

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Akheia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Akheia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

PithHelmet7

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HymenaeusAlexander

Link to comment

Share on other sites

PithHelmet7

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦