Introduction...

[pitchu]

That truely is wonderful to hear. I made a topic a few months back asking this very thing and no one could think of any christian who came on here and changed their ways. That is great to hear.

 

To me, the first and most memorable is Reach, back when there were only about 300 members at Ex-C. She put up with a lot from us, but hung in, in her decent, wise and intelligent way, and her post of recognition that she must break with christianity was an enormous and emotional event for all of us then. She's a mod, now, and doesn't drop by nearly often enough for my taste.

 

There have been others since, but when our family was so small it was an amazing, amazing shared experience.

[mwc]

This may seem like a pointless question...How many ex-christians from this site went back to the faith?

 

This may be the blasphemies of all blasphemies, but I believe it can happen. Has it really happened though?

Yep. I've seen it happen during my stay here. Since I'm not in the "conversion" game anymore I don't see it as a loss like I would have from the other side. I see it as someone who simply is doing what they feel is right for their own life. I think it is a crutch but hey, that's me. My only hope for anyone that goes back to the cult (or any similar thing) is that their time here will help them influence the other cult members in such a way to simply let us live our lives in peace. To stop making stupid narrow minded laws and seeing us as the enemy. I have no idea if that's what has/is happening but I can dream can't I?

 

We've also gained some folks. So I guess it works both ways. I can't say for sure though, because, like I said, I'm not big on the whole "conversion" thing anymore. I do think we've gained more than we've lost so score one for "evil."

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

It's like drugs people, religion is like drugs.

Don't they say that religion is the opium of the people?

[Ouroboros]

It's like drugs people, religion is like drugs.

Don't they say that religion is the opium of the people?

Carl Marx, Marquis de Sade, and Aldous Huxley, have all said it.

[par4dcourse]

Lack of response by the OP leads me to believe this is yet another drive-by saving. Hoped up Angel, you're not going to spread the word as your lard and slaver commands if you let a few of us nasty ex-c's scare you away!

C'mon, there's a few thousand of us just waiting for your epiphany that will send us groveling for forgiveness and eternal reward from the big guy.

[Angel of Hope]

I tried posting, but my connection was lost in the middle of my post...

 

I'll try again later, when I have time...

 

~AOH~

[Antlerman]

I guess this means I was right.

 

Is the OP a post and run? Don't know, but I doubt it actually. Two other possibilities: She either posted this and is planning to check back after a few days, which it's only been a couple; or she has logged on as guest (since she logged off right after posting this), read the responses, and doesn't know how to respond as it's not what she expected as it was outside her experience. I'm betting she'll be back over the next week and respond.

[Antlerman]

I tried posting, but my connection was lost in the middle of my post...

 

I'll try again later, when I have time...

 

~AOH~

Word to the wise, copy your text before hitting the submit button. That way if something goes wrong, you can just paste it back again. It's saved me hundreds of times.

[godlessgrrl]

Greetings, Angel. Welcome to the forum.

 

I'm 23, and I am a Christian. I describe my faith as "moderate": I believe that the text is important in the Bible, but the message of the text is just as important, if not [more] so.

 

What is the difference between the text and its message, from your perspective?

 

I also believe that, because each book - and some passages of certain books, - were written by different people, God's Word was stated in different ways, and each person could only reveal the piece of the puzzle that they could handle... so to speak.

 

Why do you believe this?

 

However, the only explanation I have found that accurately explains how so many different people can agree on the same issues, and be from so many conflicting demographics and experiences, is if God Himself was inspiring them to write what they did. Sure, it was written from human perspective; but, it was written based on what God revealed to each person, that they could understand.

 

Mmm. If you believe the bible contains cohesive agreement, I doubt you've read it in any depth. At the very least, I suspect you haven't read it with a critical mind. It's actually riddled with contradictions, disagreements, and inconsistencies.

 

I look forward to learning more about why people would leave the Christian faith, and why they would choose other faiths over Christianity.

 

Well, you have two choices here. You can take the word of the bible, or you can take the word of a group of ex-believers.

 

If you go with Option #1, the bible provides a number of reasons why we left.

 

Matthew 13:1-9 (The Parable of the Sower) offers a few possibilities: we were shallow soil, or our faith was rootless. 2 Corinthians 11:3 offers another: we were deceived by Satan. John 3:19 suggests we are motivated by a love of evil. 2 Peter 2 and Romans 1:18-32 further illuminate our depraved motivations and our overall degeneracy.

 

According to the bible, we leave or reject xianity because we are shallow, depraved people who want to live lives of sin because we love evil. If you believe the bible is the word of god, and is correct in all things, then that's all the answer you need.

 

On the other hand, if you take Option #2, and decide to believe the word of a bunch of apostates over the word of god, then there are countless reasons why we've left. It just depends on the ex-believer.

 

I highly suggest you read some of the stories from the Testimonies section of this forum for some clues as to our motivations. We like it when people do their homework.

 

My understanding of Christianity may be different from what most are used to, but that just makes for better discussion... and better chances for understanding...

 

No, actually, your understanding doesn't sound terribly out of the ordinary yet. In fact it looks quite familiar.

 

May God's peace be upon you all,

 

Thank you kindly, Angel. I hope you have a nice day, and that your connectivity issues are resolved so that you may come back and post again.

[Antlerman]

Mmm. If you believe the bible contains cohesive agreement, I doubt you've read it in any depth. At the very least, I suspect you haven't read it with a critical mind. It's actually riddled with contradictions, disagreements, and inconsistencies.

 

I look forward to learning more about why people would leave the Christian faith, and why they would choose other faiths over Christianity.

 

Well, you have two choices here. You can take the word of the bible, or you can take the word of a group of ex-believers.

 

If you go with Option #1, the bible provides a number of reasons why we left.

 

Matthew 13:1-9 (The Parable of the Sower) offers a few possibilities: we were shallow soil, or our faith was rootless. 2 Corinthians 11:3 offers another: we were deceived by Satan. John 3:19 suggests we are motivated by a love of evil. 2 Peter 2 and Romans 1:18-32 further illuminate our depraved motivations and our overall degeneracy.

 

According to the bible, we leave or reject xianity because we are shallow, depraved people who want to live lives of sin because we love evil. If you believe the bible is the word of god, and is correct in all things, then that's all the answer you need.

 

On the other hand, if you take Option #2, and decide to believe the word of a bunch of apostates over the word of god, then there are countless reasons why we've left. It just depends on the ex-believer.

Well, I think that you've just nailed it. We are living proof the Bible isn't the word of God. We contradict the "inspired word of God" in regards to why people leave the faith. None of those reasons apply, in fact quite the opposite, it was precisely because of sincerity that we did. Tried as hard as we did to make it work, we had to face reality and the hard choice to leave it behind. No one here found it easy to leave. No one. That's why this site exists. If we were off lusting after sin, then why all the difficulty breaking away? We didn't want to leave. We were forced by integrity to do so.

 

No, the "word of God" just sounds like a bunch of political rhetoric, not reality. We are the biggest, living contradiction to the Bible.

[godlessgrrl]

We are the biggest, living contradiction to the Bible.

 

We are indeed.

 

Unfortunately, for the devout, when the bible appears to be in conflict with reality, guess which one tends to win.

[Antlerman]

We are the biggest, living contradiction to the Bible.

 

We are indeed.

 

Unfortunately, for the devout, when the bible appears to be in conflict with reality, guess which one tends to win.

This is true, however I believe that what happens for them is a conflict that they are lying to themselves. They can argue with their reason in saying the Bible must be right, then there is that part of them that is human. The part that when they talk to other humans they know what the truth is with their emotional nature. I swear that the literalist has got to be the most conflicted humans that exist. As such, their beliefs are anything but spiritually liberating. Quite the opposite. It's prison of conflict.

 

To Angel of Hope: You should really try to understand these things we're all saying here. There's a reality outside your theology. It's where you'll find your religion at odds with what you know in your heart. I'm speaking from experience having been there. By all means, join into the conversation, but do so hearing the reality of our words.

[Justin]

We are the biggest, living contradiction to the Bible.

 

And all god's people said, Amen.

[Justin]

I guess this means I was right.

 

Is the OP a post and run? Don't know, but I doubt it actually. Two other possibilities: She either posted this and is planning to check back after a few days, which it's only been a couple; or she has logged on as guest (since she logged off right after posting this), read the responses, and doesn't know how to respond as it's not what she expected as it was outside her experience. I'm betting she'll be back over the next week and respond.

 

I'll concead defeat when she actually makes a post.

[Evolution_beyond]

Angel, I propose that you are Christian by accident of birth. It is your upbringing and society that set the tone for your beliefs.

 

Should you ever dispassionately study your religion, other belief systems, and history, you may come to the same conclusions that many of us have.

 

Those conclusions are that the Bible is a derivative collection of even older myths, almost arbitrarily gathered into canon, that the book has internal conflicts, is at odds with science and history, and depicts a capricious supreme being who has little tolerance for his own creations.

 

In short, it makes no sense.

 

Wow! So brief, so true, so spot-on. That's the best summation of non-christian reasons for disagreeing with christianity I have ever read.

[Evolution_beyond]

However, the only explanation I have found that accurately explains how so many different people can agree on the same issues, and be from so many conflicting demographics and experiences, is if God Himself was inspiring them to write what they did.

 

Agree on the same issues? The Bible is always contradicting itself.

 

Even core theology isn't really clear. Was Jesus a special man chosen by God, or was Jesus God? Look carefully at the New Testament and you'll see that the answer to even that question is not clear.

 

How many angels/men were at the tomb?

 

Did Paul go to Arabia and then back to Damascus after his vision? Or did Paul go straight to Jerusalem after being cured of his blindness?

 

Were men and women created after plants and animals - or was Adam created first and the plants and animals created for him?

 

The Bible can't agree on anything!

[Angel of Hope]

Greetings, Angel. Welcome to the forum.

 

I'm 23, and I am a Christian. I describe my faith as "moderate": I believe that the text is important in the Bible, but the message of the text is just as important, if not [more] so.

 

What is the difference between the text and its message, from your perspective?

 

I also believe that, because each book - and some passages of certain books, - were written by different people, God's Word was stated in different ways, and each person could only reveal the piece of the puzzle that they could handle... so to speak.

 

Why do you believe this?

 

However, the only explanation I have found that accurately explains how so many different people can agree on the same issues, and be from so many conflicting demographics and experiences, is if God Himself was inspiring them to write what they did. Sure, it was written from human perspective; but, it was written based on what God revealed to each person, that they could understand.

 

Mmm. If you believe the bible contains cohesive agreement, I doubt you've read it in any depth. At the very least, I suspect you haven't read it with a critical mind. It's actually riddled with contradictions, disagreements, and inconsistencies.

 

I look forward to learning more about why people would leave the Christian faith, and why they would choose other faiths over Christianity.

 

Well, you have two choices here. You can take the word of the bible, or you can take the word of a group of ex-believers.

 

If you go with Option #1, the bible provides a number of reasons why we left.

 

Matthew 13:1-9 (The Parable of the Sower) offers a few possibilities: we were shallow soil, or our faith was rootless. 2 Corinthians 11:3 offers another: we were deceived by Satan. John 3:19 suggests we are motivated by a love of evil. 2 Peter 2 and Romans 1:18-32 further illuminate our depraved motivations and our overall degeneracy.

 

According to the bible, we leave or reject xianity because we are shallow, depraved people who want to live lives of sin because we love evil. If you believe the bible is the word of god, and is correct in all things, then that's all the answer you need.

 

On the other hand, if you take Option #2, and decide to believe the word of a bunch of apostates over the word of god, then there are countless reasons why we've left. It just depends on the ex-believer.

 

I highly suggest you read some of the stories from the Testimonies section of this forum for some clues as to our motivations. We like it when people do their homework.

 

My understanding of Christianity may be different from what most are used to, but that just makes for better discussion... and better chances for understanding...

 

No, actually, your understanding doesn't sound terribly out of the ordinary yet. In fact it looks quite familiar.

 

May God's peace be upon you all,

 

Thank you kindly, Angel. I hope you have a nice day, and that your connectivity issues are resolved so that you may come back and post again.

 

Hi, Gwenmead (Celtic, right?)

 

In the Bible, especially in the New Testament, there were groups that were what some might call "literalists" or "legalists": those who took the words of the Torah and the Prophecies to an extreme literality (that may not even be a word, but you know what I mean). Essentially, by not understanding that there is more to the meaning of a text than what it appears to say centuries later, from a scholarly perspective, they were taking away the importance of the message (forgiveness, love, ministry, prudence in life, enjoying life {though not to an extreme level}, etc.). Then, there were those who disregarded huge and important sections of the written teachings, because studying them from just a surface level would naturally leave a scholar with a bunch of what seem to be contradictions (as there would be in any culture's sacred literature). Thus, they were missing out on very important messages, because they couldn't see past the past, and see the timeless message beneath. Finally, Christ brought back the purity of God's Message. The text is important, because that's how the message is conveyed. However, the message is just as important: without it, there would be no need for, or significance to, the text. This was the moderate sect, and that is the way I believe and practice.

 

I believe this because, like much of the Bible's message, I have experienced it in real life. I can't even begin to tell you how many preachers I have heard talk - some good, some terrible, and some unworthy of the title they use, - but one thing I can honestly say is that not one of them has neglected to bring up at least one valuable point at some time during their career. Yes, there are other scholars that can help shed light on the message of the Bible, but that's how it is with any lesson or course. Why else would there be teachers? However, do I base everything I know about the Bible solely on what they say? No. I experience it myself, and use my experiences and sense to understand it (not that the people here don't have or use these things; perhaps there would be some other reason those on this board lost their faith, generally speaking).

I guess another way of putting it would be this: when I was in middle school, my teacher did two exercises with us. In the first, we sat in a circle. He whispered something to the first kid in the circle, and didn't repeat it clearly. They passed on whatever they heard to the second kid, and he passed on whatever he heard to the third kid, and so on, until it came right back around to the teacher. When we compared with the first kid, we found out that the message passed along pretty solidly for a few people, and then got mangled up more and more until it was barely recognizable: thus, in translation, a lot can be lost, which is why we have to look deeper into the meaning of the translation... The other experiment was that he went around the room, and showed us something he wrote on a piece of paper. We had to read it quickly through once, and then write it in our own words. The next day, we all had to pin our papers to the wall. We had to go from one to the next, and try to decipher what the original message was, by reading the other messages and comparing them. When we did, though they appeared to look contradictory, we found that the answer was to put together all the contradictory answers, and find out where they synch up: only by doing that were we able to get the message, which the teacher then posted on the door at the end of the class, for us all to read. The moral: if you read between the lines of two "conflicting" texts that are in the same collection, it will reveal the original message. In fact, this was the kind of thing Jesus was trying to teach the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Herodians.

 

Who says that you can't be deceived by Satan, and still be a good peson? In Acts 17, Paul was talking to a group of people whose hearts were in the right place, but who were deceived by various devils into worshipping them. God put up with the fact that they were deceived, until they learned the truth.

 

See, from the posts I've read so far, it seems that most of the people on here only think of Christianity, and thus the teachings of Christ, from the perspective of one denomination or another. I have learned from experience that there are some things denominations get right, and there are some things they all get wrong in one way or another. That's why I don't subscribe to any one denomination's beliefs or interpretations.

 

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

 

I've been homeless, lived on the streets, gone without a shower for two weeks on end and clean clothes for over three, and not known where my family's next meal was coming from. I've lived in pest-infested dumps and slaved away for old men (on scrapping projects), who were too interested in getting slave labor to actually care about the people in their ministries. I've been put on medication that left me a zombie, and suffered horrible hallucinogenic and delusional side-effects when taken off of it (mainly due to my fear of death when I was on it: the meds I was on inhibit the functions of the brain, to keep you stable). I've seen people suffer from the hypocrisy of so-called "christians", who were just hiding behind a name to line their pockets and have people line up to pat them on the back for all the so-called "help" they were allegedly giving to those same people that were on the streets, and in similar situations to mine. Every time I needed help, I asked for it from God in Christ's name, and every time the answer was presented to me. The things I've suffered in my life have gone toward helping other people avoid and deal with such suffering in theirs. God has shown me, time and again, in dealing with the problems sent my way, that the Bible does show us the right way to deal with our problems. God has also shown me that the consequences for certain sins are the same in real life, as they are in the Bible. And besides that, wouldn't you agree with me that the best way to learn is to learn from your elders? What source of information would, then, be better than that given from over 2,000 years ago, by men from all kinds of lifestyles and circumstances; from kings to beggars, and from fishermen to prophets and priests? It is, literally, the best collection of experience I have seen. Granted, I'm no expert in world religions, but it has yet to be proven wrong in my life... and really, isn't that the only experience I can speak from: my own?

 

That's why I believe what I believe, practice what I practice, say what I say, and feel what I feel.

 

~AOH~

[Angel of Hope]

However, the only explanation I have found that accurately explains how so many different people can agree on the same issues, and be from so many conflicting demographics and experiences, is if God Himself was inspiring them to write what they did.

 

Agree on the same issues? The Bible is always contradicting itself.

 

Even core theology isn't really clear. Was Jesus a special man chosen by God, or was Jesus God? Look carefully at the New Testament and you'll see that the answer to even that question is not clear.

 

How many angels/men were at the tomb?

 

Did Paul go to Arabia and then back to Damascus after his vision? Or did Paul go straight to Jerusalem after being cured of his blindness?

 

Were men and women created after plants and animals - or was Adam created first and the plants and animals created for him?

 

The Bible can't agree on anything!

 

- Jesus, the man, was the person chosen by God to do His work. Jesus, as God, was the only person who could do the work, anyway.

 

- There were two angels at the tomb. No less than one, and no more than two. They were angels, in the form of men, which is why it says that they were both angels and men: manly angels, as it were.

 

- Paul went to Jerusalem first, then to Arabia, and finally back to Damascus, after he was cured of his blindness. Compared to other trips, he didn't stay too long in any of these three places, and they were the first three he visited after his blindness was cured. There were records from each place that documented his visit to them, but they didn't always have ways of sharing information that were fast or reliable.

 

- Adam was created first, the plants and animals were created for him (before he was, as a provisionary measure, like how light was created before it was pulled into points like the stars for the plants to get light before the stars were formed). Since Eve was part of Adam from the beginning, Adam and Eve both existed after the plants and animals were created. Then, Eve was formed out of Adam.

 

See how, when you put all the evidence together, the answer becomes clear?

 

God Bless,

 

~AOH~

[Deva]

See, from the posts I've read so far, it seems that most of the people on here only think of Christianity, and thus the teachings of Christ, from the perspective of one denomination or another. I have learned from experience that there are some things denominations get right, and there are some things they all get wrong in one way or another. That's why I don't subscribe to any one denomination's beliefs or interpretations.

 

That perception would be incorrect Angel. Most, if not all of us are well versed in the differences between different Christian theologies. We have and a few Christians here before that describe themselves as "nondenominational".

 

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

 

So its a personal, subjective experience. We have heard this many times. The evidence is not persuasive to others here who have prayed to Christ also and received no answer whatsoever.

 

And besides that, wouldn't you agree with me that the best way to learn is to learn from your elders?

 

Actually, no. Have you ever heard the expression "there is no fool like an old fool"? It has its basis in fact. You can't say that the older someone is automatically the wiser they are.

 

What source of information would, then, be better than that given from over 2,000 years ago, by men from all kinds of lifestyles and circumstances; from kings to beggars, and from fishermen to prophets and priests? It is, literally, the best collection of experience I have seen. Granted, I'm no expert in world religions, but it has yet to be proven wrong in my life... and really, isn't that the only experience I can speak from: my own?

 

Better sources of information? To prove something like the resurrection, give me a photograph or a film of the actual resurrection. Give me voice recordings, at least, from the folks who claimed to have witnessed Jesus after his death. Don't give me written accounts from 50 years after the event, translated from a different language, and all different from each other. Don't give me stuff that Bishops have sorted through and decided what gets into the book and what doesn't. At least, give me other contemporary accounts to the events by people who weren't Christian. Some record by the Romans might be helpful. Of course none of that modern recording media was avaiable 2,000 years ago so we are stuck with inferior and embellished accounts that don't jibe. Christianity claims to be based on historical events, for which proof is lacking.

 

Finally, Angel, if the Bible and Jesus have helped you reconcile yourself to your life, I can't say that for you its wrong. Where its wrong is trying to maintain its some universal Truth everyone ought to have otherwise they are "sinners" and bound for hell.

[Taphophilia]

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

 

I've been homeless, lived on the streets, gone without a shower for two weeks on end and clean clothes for over three, and not known where my family's next meal was coming from. I've lived in pest-infested dumps and slaved away for old men (on scrapping projects), who were too interested in getting slave labor to actually care about the people in their ministries. I've been put on medication that left me a zombie, and suffered horrible hallucinogenic and delusional side-effects when taken off of it (mainly due to my fear of death when I was on it: the meds I was on inhibit the functions of the brain, to keep you stable). I've seen people suffer from the hypocrisy of so-called "christians", who were just hiding behind a name to line their pockets and have people line up to pat them on the back for all the so-called "help" they were allegedly giving to those same people that were on the streets, and in similar situations to mine. Every time I needed help, I asked for it from God in Christ's name, and every time the answer was presented to me. The things I've suffered in my life have gone toward helping other people avoid and deal with such suffering in theirs. God has shown me, time and again, in dealing with the problems sent my way, that the Bible does show us the right way to deal with our problems. God has also shown me that the consequences for certain sins are the same in real life, as they are in the Bible. And besides that, wouldn't you agree with me that the best way to learn is to learn from your elders? What source of information would, then, be better than that given from over 2,000 years ago, by men from all kinds of lifestyles and circumstances; from kings to beggars, and from fishermen to prophets and priests? It is, literally, the best collection of experience I have seen. Granted, I'm no expert in world religions, but it has yet to be proven wrong in my life... and really, isn't that the only experience I can speak from: my own?

 

That's why I believe what I believe, practice what I practice, say what I say, and feel what I feel.

 

~AOH~

 

I left my abusive ex-husband in the middle of the night. I had three small children. I was technically homeless. I didn't know where my next meal was coming from. Where I would sleep and had to confront drug addicts, gang member and worst of all deal with the arrogant workers who were supposed to help me who treated me like I was no better than the gang members and drug addicts.

 

If you want to say that god answers your prayers, fine. You are either delusional or immature. I was a Christian when I had to go through all this and I know it wasn't god. I did it all myself and with the help of kind and loving people. To say it was god only discredits yourself and the others who were there for you.

 

Believe what you want, but why do you have to convince everyone else.

[Justin]

- There were two angels at the tomb. No less than one, and no more than two. They were angels, in the form of men, which is why it says that they were both angels and men: manly angels, as it were.

 

"Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)

Mark: One young man (16:5)

Luke: Two men (24:4)

John: Two angels (20:12) "

 

 

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter09

http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter08

[Ouroboros]

...

See, from the posts I've read so far, it seems that most of the people on here only think of Christianity, and thus the teachings of Christ, from the perspective of one denomination or another. I have learned from experience that there are some things denominations get right, and there are some things they all get wrong in one way or another. That's why I don't subscribe to any one denomination's beliefs or interpretations.

...

That brings up another point. Jesus supposedly said:

 

John 17:20-23

20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

Or to make a bit more clear, the whole bunch of contradictory denominations creates this problem: Jesus said that the proof that all this came from God would be that all "Christians" would be united. There would be a unity.

 

We don't see this unity, and as you say, there are denominations that get things wrong, and you also have a lot of conflicts and fights between them.

 

To take Jesus's words seriously, this means Christianity isn't from God.

 

As to the question of why I believe, there are the main two factors that Huston Smith provides in his book, "The Religions of Man": logic/meaning, and experience. The Bible seems to me to have the only plausible conclusion, and Christ has proven himself every time I have prayed to God for help in His name.

What conclusion? As you said, there are many different denominations, so there are many different conclusions. If there's only "one conclusion", then your earlier statement have no foundation; our experience of a particular denomination and theology shouldn't be any different than yours. I think the explanation is rather that you apply and modify (unconsciously) the Bible to fit you, than the opposite. You pick the verses, and make a conclusion that is perfect for what you want to believe, and you disregard the verses and parts or theology that doesn't attract you.

 

 

Who says that you can't be deceived by Satan, and still be a good peson? In Acts 17, Paul was talking to a group of people whose hearts were in the right place, but who were deceived by various devils into worshipping them. God put up with the fact that they were deceived, until they learned the truth.

Which means, you don't have to be a Christian, or religious, or believe in the Bible, or follow God, or anything of all that stuff, to be a moral person. This means that you have to agree that morality is not a divine attribute, not is it only achieved through supernatural influence, but morality is something we, as humans, can do and know without God. Agreed?

[Evolution_beyond]

- Jesus, the man, was the person chosen by God to do His work. Jesus, as God, was the only person who could do the work, anyway.

 

And yet when Jesus is addressed as "good teacher" he says "why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10 v 18)

 

And Jesus also says "the father is greater than I" (John 14 v 28)

 

Paul says "Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15 vv 27-28)

 

This is what I mean. The Bible says or implies that Jesus is God - but then it contradicts itself and makes it quite clear that Jesus does not equal God.

 

- There were two angels at the tomb. No less than one, and no more than two. They were angels, in the form of men, which is why it says that they were both angels and men: manly angels, as it were.

 

So how come Matthew and Mark both say that there was only one?

 

- Paul went to Jerusalem first, then to Arabia, and finally back to Damascus, after he was cured of his blindness. Compared to other trips, he didn't stay too long in any of these three places, and they were the first three he visited after his blindness was cured. There were records from each place that documented his visit to them, but they didn't always have ways of sharing information that were fast or reliable.

 

So how come Paul himself says that "I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem... but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem." (Galatians 1 vv 17-18)

 

Was Paul lying? Or was it Luke who didn't have the correct information?

 

- Adam was created first, the plants and animals were created for him (before he was, as a provisionary measure, like how light was created before it was pulled into points like the stars for the plants to get light before the stars were formed). Since Eve was part of Adam from the beginning, Adam and Eve both existed after the plants and animals were created. Then, Eve was formed out of Adam.

 

I think this is over-explaining at its finest. So we have two accounts do we? One of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and one that describes Adam when he existed as a spirit before he was actually created in physical form. That is such an obviously invented explanation!

 

If that is the case then why is the Bible not clearer about what it actually means? Why does it say that Adam is in the garden of Eden, watered by those four rivers, when in fact it is describing Adam in some kind of spiritual before time?

[Antlerman]

- Adam was created first, the plants and animals were created for him (before he was, as a provisionary measure, like how light was created before it was pulled into points like the stars for the plants to get light before the stars were formed). Since Eve was part of Adam from the beginning, Adam and Eve both existed after the plants and animals were created. Then, Eve was formed out of Adam.

 

See how, when you put all the evidence together, the answer becomes clear?

You know, I'm almost wishing you would have answered, "It's allegorical". I can see some value in looking at these things symbolically, as a way of abstractly looking at the world. But once you try to make them "fit", you've now stepped outside the, how shall I put it, the more abstract "spiritual" way of looking at things, and under the surgical lights of rational scrutiny? Bad move when it comes to finding value in myth.

 

No, no, no. Let "light" be revelation of divine knowledge, if you will, not so many lumen value of photons!! These are not symbols of science. Oh why do I try to help? Let's see if you can go this one yourself.

[Justin]

- Adam was created first, the plants and animals were created for him (before he was, as a provisionary measure, like how light was created before it was pulled into points like the stars for the plants to get light before the stars were formed). Since Eve was part of Adam from the beginning, Adam and Eve both existed after the plants and animals were created. Then, Eve was formed out of Adam.

 

See how, when you put all the evidence together, the answer becomes clear?

 

Did you put that laughing smiley at the end of that because you reread it before posting it and saw how fucking idiotic it is?