Selfish Xians Won't Share Their Faith

[R. S. Martin]

Here. A person seems to be asking genuine questions about Christianity. Maybe it's just me being naive. The Christian talks all around the matter and never answers his basic questions on how to be saved. I can't believe it! Where I come from this would have been seen as the equivalent of murder.

 

Of course, I'm Mennonite and apparently he's Calvinist. He believes only those who are called can be saved. But still.....who does he think he is to deny answers to a person who asks???

[been there done that]

Hello R.S. Martin,

 

My computer crashed a week ago Saturday. Right now, I'm on a friends computer and will have to be brief. That was a very interesting philosophical discussion on the forum you listed.

 

The discussion mentioned the philosophical concept of "moral truth". "Moral" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth. Objective truth is very important for a peaceful and just Godly spirit.

 

Even though Pilate wasn't a philosopher, Pilate asked "What is truth?". It wasn't answered until Jesus said "I am the way,...". When we are told of the "strong delusion", we are also explicitly told that "they refused to love the TRUTH and SO BE SAVED". When Pilate asked about "truth", he was referring to mankind's preference for SUBJECTIVE/biased truth and that OBJECTIVE truth is irrelevant to human nature. This is why we need to be passionate about OBJECTIVE/unbiased/absolute truth in order to be saved (speaking in no uncertain terms).

 

"Moral truth" is still somewhat subjective (although very well meaning) because "moral" is of a CODE of morality. In the Garden Of Eden, it was the "tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL" that was eaten of, not the tree of the knowledge of RIGHT and WRONG or the tree tree of MORALITY. In God (God's world), there are only GOOD and EVIL (OUR/humanity's undestanding of the merit of deeds is expressed as right/wrong/moral).

 

Anything that is not "GOOD" (beneficial for peaceful coexistence) is "EVIL". In this way, God is not "MORAL" and is not defined by/confined to humanity's knowledge of what is right.

 

In God, there is only absolute "GOOD" (beneficial for peaceful coexistence)...and 'NOT GOOD'/evil.

("GOOD" is an absolute, it means "PERFECT", which is why "No one is good but God alone". We are to "practice goodNESS and hospitality").

 

Christians forget that Jesus did not just die on the cross, He also LEFT GOD'S SPIRIT for us to learn to be Godly. It is this second act of what Jesus did that is important for genuine redemption, not only Jesus's first deed on the cross, because Jesus's second deed (leaving the spirit as our ONLY teacher) is how we will understand the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL. The importance of knowing this knowledge is expressed in Hebrews 5:14 where we are told to distinguish between the two,...making a CLEAR division (as a sword would) so that the change from good to evil (right/wrong) is clear and abrupt and there is no middle ground between the two ("no variation or shadow", James 1:17). This is known as the "SWORD of the spirit" (the real word of God, Ephesians 6:17, the bible is simply the "word of truth", 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13). These are things that Christianity doesn't know because they don't want to know/understand (they REFUSE to love [be passionate about] THE objective TRUTH).

 

After 2000 years, Christianity still does not know/understand a VERY important thing about the crucifixion (water also flowed from Christ's side). Ask any Christian or pastor, scholar, etc., THEY DO NOT KNOW, it might be possible that some/few have some idea.

 

LIVING water baptism of God's spirit is necessary for true redemption (John 7:38, Rev. 7:16, Acts 1:5), John only baptized with H2O (but no amount of wetness will make a person Godly).

 

So while belief (the ability to believe something, FAITH) is important, a Godly devotion is not based on FAITH, it is based on LOVE (God is love, the GREATEST of these, 1 Corin. 13:13). This is a "more excellent" devotion (1 Corin. 12:31).

 

A true devotion is a "faith FOR faith", Romans 1:17.

 

For those who will DRAW NEAR (closer, out of sincerity and love), there must be TWO types of faith...Hebrews 11:6...

 

1) faith/belief that God exists.

2) faith/trust that He is a good god.

 

There is alot that christianity/humanity misunderstands about God because humanity/christianity would rather imagine that they "ACHEIVE worthiness" instead of simply be happy RECEIVING God's gracious/generous love and gifts (a GIFT is a GIFT and requires no commitment in return).

[LilaMae]

RubySera- I tend to find that some Calvinists just don't bother. Any more people in heaven means that they are less special.

[Neon Genesis]

Anything that is not "GOOD" (beneficial for peaceful coexistence) is "EVIL". In this way, God is not "MORAL" and is not defined by/confined to humanity's knowledge of what is right.

 

In God, there is only absolute "GOOD" (beneficial for peaceful coexistence)...and 'NOT GOOD'/evil.

This is a contradiction. You claim that in god there is only absolute good but then you turn around and say that god is not defined by what humanity's knowledge is of what is right. If god is not defined by humanity's knowledge of what is right, then how can you as a human define god as being absolute good? And why should god not be held to the same rules that he creates? If a parent would tell their child that killing is wrong but then turn around and beat their child to death and then justify it by saying they can do whatever they feel like because they're a parent, we would arrest them for child abuse. Why does god get a special pass to commit whatever action he wants to whether it's good or evil? Doesn't that mean humans are more moral than your god?

 

("GOOD" is an absolute, it means "PERFECT", which is why "No one is good but God alone". We are to "practice goodNESS and hospitality").

But according to dictionary.com, "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree, of high quality; excellent. " I don't see anything about good meaning perfect there. Dictionary.com's definition of perfect, " excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement:entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings, conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type"

 

This is known as the "SWORD of the spirit" (the real word of God, Ephesians 6:17, the bible is simply the "word of truth", 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13). These are things that Christianity doesn't know because they don't want to know/understand (they REFUSE to love [be passionate about] THE objective TRUTH).

Can you clarify what you mean, please?

 

 

 

So while belief (the ability to believe something, FAITH) is important, a Godly devotion is not based on FAITH, it is based on LOVE (God is love, the GREATEST of these, 1 Corin. 13:13). This is a "more excellent" devotion (1 Corin. 12:31).

If love is greater than faith, why do we need to believe in your god?

[R. S. Martin]

RubySera- I tend to find that some Calvinists just don't bother. Any more people in heaven means that they are less special.

 

How utterly evil!

 

If that is how little they care about others maybe I can let up a bit, too, on my side. I read one of wonder's posts on Theological Issues on exC. He said the way to get ahead with Christians is to be respectful of those who deserve it and ignore the rest. Also to use a reward and punishment system. This works only if they care whether or not one responds to them.

 

I'm picking out the ones I think are worthy of my time and energy. The guy who responded this questioner is NOT worth my time and energy. He wrote me off as a bully because I requested--horror of horrors!--evidence. Ever hear of such a dirty word, LilaMae? I actually had to gall to utter it on a Christian forum not once or twice but many times in broad daylight and in polite company and persistently as though I expected them to deliver as promised.

[R. S. Martin]

Hello R.S. Martin,

 

My computer crashed a week ago Saturday. Right now, I'm on a friends computer and will have to be brief. That was a very interesting philosophical discussion on the forum you listed.

 

The discussion mentioned the philosophical concept of "moral truth". "Moral" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth. Objective truth is very important for a peaceful and just Godly spirit.

 

Thank you for taking the time to look up the discussion and for trying to clarify. I have a few questions. You say: "Moral" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth. I don't know how much you read on their forums but they speak a lot about objective morality. Thus, it seems they disagree with your concept of morals being the same as Objective Truth.

 

I will ask my other questions below.

 

Even though Pilate wasn't a philosopher, Pilate asked "What is truth?". It wasn't answered until Jesus said "I am the way,...". When we are told of the "strong delusion", we are also explicitly told that "they refused to love the TRUTH and SO BE SAVED". When Pilate asked about "truth", he was referring to mankind's preference for SUBJECTIVE/biased truth and that OBJECTIVE truth is irrelevant to human nature. This is why we need to be passionate about OBJECTIVE/unbiased/absolute truth in order to be saved (speaking in no uncertain terms).

 

How do you know what kind of truth Pilate was asking about? The NT says very little about him personally and nothing about his life philosophy that I can think of.

 

Christians forget that Jesus did not just die on the cross, He also LEFT GOD'S SPIRIT for us to learn to be Godly. It is this second act of what Jesus did that is important for genuine redemption, not only Jesus's first deed on the cross, because Jesus's second deed (leaving the spirit as our ONLY teacher) is how we will understand the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL. The importance of knowing this knowledge is expressed in Hebrews 5:14 where we are told to distinguish between the two,...making a CLEAR division (as a sword would) so that the change from good to evil (right/wrong) is clear and abrupt and there is no middle ground between the two ("no variation or shadow", James 1:17). This is known as the "SWORD of the spirit" (the real word of God, Ephesians 6:17, the bible is simply the "word of truth", 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13). These are things that Christianity doesn't know because they don't want to know/understand (they REFUSE to love [be passionate about] THE objective TRUTH).

 

After 2000 years, Christianity still does not know/understand a VERY important thing about the crucifixion (water also flowed from Christ's side). Ask any Christian or pastor, scholar, etc., THEY DO NOT KNOW, it might be possible that some/few have some idea.

 

LIVING water baptism of God's spirit is necessary for true redemption (John 7:38, Rev. 7:16, Acts 1:5), John only baptized with H2O (but no amount of wetness will make a person Godly).

 

So while belief (the ability to believe something, FAITH) is important, a Godly devotion is not based on FAITH, it is based on LOVE (God is love, the GREATEST of these, 1 Corin. 13:13). This is a "more excellent" devotion (1 Corin. 12:31).

 

A true devotion is a "faith FOR faith", Romans 1:17.

 

For those who will DRAW NEAR (closer, out of sincerity and love), there must be TWO types of faith...Hebrews 11:6...

 

1) faith/belief that God exists.

2) faith/trust that He is a good god.

 

There is alot that christianity/humanity misunderstands about God because humanity/christianity would rather imagine that they "ACHEIVE worthiness" instead of simply be happy RECEIVING God's gracious/generous love and gifts (a GIFT is a GIFT and requires no commitment in return).

 

Are you not a Christian? What are you then? All your beliefs are Christian but you talk as though you think you are different from them. So what do you call yourself?

[been there done that]

Neon Genesis,

 

A person who has the intention of being "CONTRARY" (opposing whatever is being said) will never be able to truly understand what is being said (closed mind) because their INTENTION (chosen purpose) is simply to be "CONTRARY". For the rest of your life, if you have the intention to oppose whatever is being said, then you will not be able to have an OPEN MIND and understand what a person is saying.

 

QUESTIONS that are intended/used to OPPOSE what a person says are self defeating and will prevent your UNDERSTANDING of what is being said. The only proper use for a question is to request clarification or more information about the topic, but questions that are used to OPPOSE prevent UNDERSTANDING. It is the same with the word "BUT" (the most misused word in the English language), it is most often used to NEGATE THE TRUTH by using OPPOSING statements (let YES be Yes and NO be NO, ....no "but").

 

Real understanding requires a paradigm shift in thinking (choosing a different reference point). I made a point of mentioning "PHILOSOPHICAL" hoping that there would be a paradigm shift to "absolute".

 

An "ABSOLUTE" (good is good is good, truth is truth is truth) is THE reference point of true reality.

 

I was trying to explain that in "God's world" (in God's terminology), "good" means "PERFECT". Since nobody on earth is perfect, no human being can actually BE "good" (we can only "practice goodNESS").

 

I thought this was self explanatory...

"GOOD" is an absolute, it means "PERFECT".

 

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

This (below) is a combination statement/question where the statement is completely irrelevant to the question, it is simply meant to OPPOSE.

 

"If love is greater than faith, why do we need to believe in your god?" (feel free to explain how, in your mind, the question is relevant to the statement).

 

That statement/question makes absolutely no sense other than to "OPPOSE". It doesn't even specify what you are opposing.

 

 

If you oppose what I wrote (the MESSAGE), make clear STATEMENTS why you oppose it. If you oppose ME (the person) because of pre-conceived notions about me (PREjudice), at least make that clear so that we both understand that there can really be no exchange of ideas between us no matter how hard we or I try.

 

God does not conform to the dictionary, nor is God explained by the dictionary.

[been there done that]

R. S. Martin,

 

You said "What are you then?"...

 

I don't feel any need to CALL myself anything (I "AM", I simply AM, "exist"). The reason people have a need to call themselves something is that they have to overcome an identity crisis, but I already AM something (a PERSON/human being).

 

I am a "human being" (my identity) that has Christian type beliefs, but not the beliefs of INSTITUTIONAL "religion". We do not need ANYONE (any human) to teach us spiritually, we have the "annointing" and the best teacher imaginable (God's spirit, if only we would USE that annointing to learn from God). There is no sane pastor on earth that would allow me to say that (and not label me as "crazy" or a demon) because that would destroy their business, but it is also churchgoers themselves who don't want to believe that we don't need spiritual teachers (because they want to be a "FOLLOWER" of someone...just like a FAN wants to be a "FAN" of a rockstar). People need "identity" in order to compensate for an identity crisis.

 

 

John 14:26 "he will teach you all things"

 

1 John 2:27

"but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and IS TRUE"

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

When I said...

"Moral" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth.

 

...I thought it would be kept in context, but I should have made it more clear by saying...

"Moral TRUTH" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth.

 

...meaning that objective truth is what God wants us to use when speaking to each other (we should speak in no uncertain/vague terms), and then we will be able to understand things according to objective truth. In other words, if we are deceptive and untruthful to others, then neither will we be able to understand objective truth (poetic justice).

 

 

You also said...

"How do you know what kind of truth Pilate was asking about?".

 

When we read scripture, contrary to what is taught, we are allowed to use common sense. What other kind of truth would you think Pilate was talking about? (suggest an alternative).

[Kuroikaze]

QUESTIONS that are intended/used to OPPOSE what a person says are self defeating and will prevent your UNDERSTANDING of what is being said. The only proper use for a question is to request clarification or more information about the topic, but questions that are used to OPPOSE prevent UNDERSTANDING. It is the same with the word "BUT" (the most misused word in the English language), it is most often used to NEGATE THE TRUTH by using OPPOSING statements (let YES be Yes and NO be NO, ....no "but").

 

This sounds like an awfully black and white way of thinking, so much for "open mindedness." It sounds like you are just ticked off that someone disagreed with you.

 

Real understanding requires a paradigm shift in thinking (choosing a different reference point). I made a point of mentioning "PHILOSOPHICAL" hoping that there would be a paradigm shift to "absolute".

 

And who gets to pick the paradigm? You? God? sorry guy, it doesn't work that way. you're just another guy, and God's existence must be established before he can go about picking anything.

 

An "ABSOLUTE" (good is good is good, truth is truth is truth) is THE reference point of true reality.

 

No, the reference point for reality is REALITY. Truth, as we see it, is just an approximation of our observations of said reality. Morality can never be absolute, because before on can decide what is moral, one must have a goal.

 

I was trying to explain that in "God's world" (in God's terminology), "good" means "PERFECT". Since nobody on earth is perfect, no human being can actually BE "good" (we can only "practice goodNESS").

 

perfection is a nonsense word, it has no meaning in this context, because no one has any idea what a "perfect" god would look like or how he would act. You might as well say that god is "slkjdalfkje" for all the good it does.

 

I thought this was self explanatory...

"GOOD" is an absolute, it means "PERFECT".

 

It is nothing of the sort, since you cannot even define the terms "good" and "perfect" in a consistent way, we have no clue what you are talking about.

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

 

 

 

If you oppose what I wrote (the MESSAGE), make clear STATEMENTS why you oppose it. If you oppose ME (the person) because of pre-conceived notions about me (PREjudice), at least make that clear so that we both understand that there can really be no exchange of ideas between us no matter how hard we or I try.

 

The only one failing to make clear statements is you. and now you stoop to ad hominem attacks, how can we oppose you personally? We don't even know you. We are debating ideas here so climb down off your cross and stop taking disagreements so personally. Sheesh, did you really expect to walk in the door and find everyone here agreed with you?

 

God does not conform to the dictionary, nor is God explained by the dictionary.

 

This isn't about god conforming to the dictionary, this is a red herring. It is about YOU and your statements conforming to the dictionary. Words are a tool for communication of ideas, nothing more, nothing less. If you use the words in non-standard ways then no one can understand you. Theology is not an excuse to just say "fuck the dictionary" and redefine words how ever you please.

[LilaMae]

I don't feel any need to CALL myself anything (I "AM", I simply AM, "exist").

 

Did you hear this people?! BTDT is claiming he is the "I AM"! He's saying he is God! Stone him!

 

 

 

RubySera- How very rude of you to expect evidence. It's rude to keep expecting people to give you what doesn't exist.

[mwc]

Even though Pilate wasn't a philosopher, Pilate asked "What is truth?". It wasn't answered until Jesus said "I am the way,...".

Asked in G.John 18:38.

Answered in G.John 14:6.

 

What foolish trickery is this? Away with thee.

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

Neon Genesis,

 

A person who has the intention of being "CONTRARY" (opposing whatever is being said) will never be able to truly understand what is being said (closed mind) because their INTENTION (chosen purpose) is simply to be "CONTRARY". For the rest of your life, if you have the intention to oppose whatever is being said, then you will not be able to have an OPEN MIND and understand what a person is saying.

How am I being closed minded? Last I checked, you're the one who came here to persecute us, not the other way around. Why don't you pick the shards out of your own eye before you pick the shard out of mine?

 

QUESTIONS that are intended/used to OPPOSE what a person says are self defeating and will prevent your UNDERSTANDING of what is being said. The only proper use for a question is to request clarification or more information about the topic, but questions that are used to OPPOSE prevent UNDERSTANDING. It is the same with the word "BUT" (the most misused word in the English language), it is most often used to NEGATE THE TRUTH by using OPPOSING statements (let YES be Yes and NO be NO, ....no "but").

So, in other words, you have no answers to any of my questions but you're too much of a coward to admit it? I noticed you didn't actually answer any of my questions at all. I thought the bible said you're supposed to always be ready to have an answer for the reason for your faith? So, why don't you stop being a coward and answer my questions?

 

I thought this was self explanatory...

"GOOD" is an absolute, it means "PERFECT".

Where's the absolute good here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_dilemma

 

That statement/question makes absolutely no sense other than to "OPPOSE". It doesn't even specify what you are opposing.

How does my question make no sense? You said yourself that love is greater than faith. If love is greater than faith, why do we need faith?

 

If you oppose what I wrote (the MESSAGE), make clear STATEMENTS why you oppose it. If you oppose ME (the person) because of pre-conceived notions about me (PREjudice), at least make that clear so that we both understand that there can really be no exchange of ideas between us no matter how hard we or I try.

Can you please stop with the persecution complex and go seek therapy since you're clearly suffering from paranoia?

 

God does not conform to the dictionary, nor is God explained by the dictionary.

God does not conform to the bible either, nor is god explained by the bible, so why are you worshiping the bible more than you worship god? By confiding god to the bible, aren't you turning the bible into an idol? Isn't that biblotory?

[Skankboy]

The discussion mentioned the philosophical concept of "moral truth". "Moral" is humanity's closest understanding of OBJECTIVE truth. Objective truth is very important for a peaceful and just Godly spirit.

 

And there's your problem right there. I honestly don't believe such a thing as "objective" truth can exist. Truth, by definition, is an abstract. Only lives in our head. Anything that only lives in our head is subjective by definition...

[been there done that]

I never wanted to bring it up before because there would be such a negative reaction, there is an obvious difference between my posts and everybody else's (very common in many forums). My posts are 'self-contained' and rarely (if ever) pick out bits and pieces of other people's posts (whether to oppose the other person OR their message). Almost EVERY single post here at this forum (whether I am in the thread or not) is only a few sentences long (sometimes a paragraph or two) because the post contains NO SUBSTANCE (no actual useful and productive/meaningful discussion of a topic). The posts simply contain ridicule/mockery, anger/hostility, and resentment/hatred (BOILERPLATE POSTS that are almost an exact copy of each other). I can understand being upset (forget about being obsessed with 'anger') that you were burned/betrayed by mankind's view of God (the "christian" game/club), but now that you have escaped "the club", when are you going to return to life/civilization and release yourself from the prison of your mind that you built with the assistance of "the book"?

 

So, you see, R.S. Martin, that what you think is always unjust selfishness is sometimes simply an acknowkedgement that trying to be helpful is often perceived by others as a sign of weakness and an open door for attack (and will be met with anger, hostility, endless opposition, ridicule, mockery, etc.) and it is highly doubtful that it (helpfulness) will ever be beneficial to anyone.

 

I came to this thread under the mistaken impression that it will finally contain INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION, but human nature is that people don't want to be released from the prison of their minds. The courage necessary to leave the safety of the STATUS QUO is rare among humanity.

 

I came to this forum months ago thinking that it might not be only aetheists that can champion intelligent conversation about God, and even after reading dozens of posts before I registered, I thought that it could still be possible to stir up intelligent conversation here (silly me), but you find the status quo prison in your mind too comfortable in order that you can remain the ETERNAL VICTIM and solicit the pity of humanity.

 

It is not I who persecute you, neither is it God, it is yourself.

[mwc]

Alright, let's see how well this really goes.

 

In BTDT's last post he says "when are you going to return to life/civilization and release yourself from the prison of your mind that you built with the assistance of 'the book'?"

 

From the following post (the one I quoted in my post) I see the following (in)direct references to "the book:"

 

Pilate asked "What is truth?".

 

Jesus said "I am the way,...".

 

we are told of the "strong delusion"

 

"they refused to love the TRUTH and SO BE SAVED"

 

the Garden Of Eden

 

the "tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL"

 

"No one is good but God alone"

 

Christians forget that Jesus did not just die on the cross

 

GOD'S SPIRIT

 

genuine redemption

 

Hebrews 5:14

 

("no variation or shadow", James 1:17)

 

"SWORD of the spirit" (the real word of God, Ephesians 6:17, the bible is simply the "word of truth", 2 Timothy 2:15, Ephesians 1:13)

 

(water also flowed from Christ's side)

 

LIVING water baptism of God's spirit is necessary for true redemption (John 7:38, Rev. 7:16, Acts 1:5)

 

(God is love, the GREATEST of these, 1 Corin. 13:13)

 

"more excellent" devotion (1 Corin. 12:31)

 

A true devotion is a "faith FOR faith", Romans 1:17.

 

there must be TWO types of faith...Hebrews 11:6...

 

1) faith/belief that God exists.

2) faith/trust that He is a good god.

I count 21 line items there. More if I go by individual items (closer to 30). I was also being gracious and removed the more obtuse references.

 

Whenever "we" (the collective "we" meaning not BTDT) try to make a point using the bible we get hammered with this allegation. We, like you, have opinions and interpretations on how the bible may be read. You do not have have sole domain over those texts. Yet you say we are trapped in this "prison." We are NOT trapped in the prison. We are...get ready...not ATHEISTS. NO. We are APOSTATES! We are free and clear of "the book" altogether. Do you not understand this?

 

You only wish to assert and not debate. You have failed to backup your claims made on the Roman slang (in another thread or two) and in this thread you've been shown to put the an answer before a question. Your "interpretations" are severely lacking in substance and logic.

 

Launching these types of tired attacks upon us whenever your interpretation/assertion is contested is tiresome and hypocritical considering just the single post I cited.

 

So, BTDT, if you wish to debate, then debate. If you wish to assert, then just go away.

 

mwc

[LilaMae]

BTDT, the reason no one else's comments are as long as yours is because we don't copy and paste bible verses into practically every one of them. When will you learn that the Bible has no authority for us? As for this thread, the reason that you have found mockery is because your comments are completely unrelated to the topic at hand, and they don't actually make sense in and of themselves.

 

Another reason your posts are so long is because you are inconcise. You took 16 lines to inform us that your posts are better than ours.

[Kuroikaze]

I never wanted to bring it up before because there would be such a negative reaction, there is an obvious difference between my posts and everybody else's (very common in many forums). My posts are 'self-contained' and rarely (if ever) pick out bits and pieces of other people's posts (whether to oppose the other person OR their message). Almost EVERY single post here at this forum (whether I am in the thread or not) is only a few sentences long (sometimes a paragraph or two) because the post contains NO SUBSTANCE (no actual useful and productive/meaningful discussion of a topic). The posts simply contain ridicule/mockery, anger/hostility, and resentment/hatred (BOILERPLATE POSTS that are almost an exact copy of each other). I can understand being upset (forget about being obsessed with 'anger') that you were burned/betrayed by mankind's view of God (the "christian" game/club), but now that you have escaped "the club", when are you going to return to life/civilization and release yourself from the prison of your mind that you built with the assistance of "the book"?

 

Holy hell, you just don't quit do you? Stop throwing a pity party for yourself. Many of us, myself included, have posted long, detailed posts to you and other Christians only to hear this same tripe again and again. Most of us are just too tired to bother anymore, because we when do try to have an intelligent conversation you ignore it and take every statement as a personal insult. This entire post is incredibly ignorant.

 

I came to this thread under the mistaken impression that it will finally contain INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION, but human nature is that people don't want to be released from the prison of their minds. The courage necessary to leave the safety of the STATUS QUO is rare among humanity.

 

Holy CRAP you are one arrogant son of a bitch. These days, I tend to avoid swearing at people here, even the Christians on this site, but this statement takes the cake.

 

You are talking to EX-Christians. Do you understand the words I am writing? EX Almost every single person on this site left the "safety of the STATUS QUO." By your arrogance I suspect you live in America and probably have never left its borders for more than a short time. This is why it is so hard for you to understand that most of the rest of the world just ignores your religion. Your religion IS the status quo in the united states, I suspect you have little idea what it is like to leave the safety of status quo or anything else for that matter.

 

I came to this forum months ago thinking that it might not be only aetheists that can champion intelligent conversation about God, and even after reading dozens of posts before I registered, I thought that it could still be possible to stir up intelligent conversation here (silly me), but you find the status quo prison in your mind too comfortable in order that you can remain the ETERNAL VICTIM and solicit the pity of humanity.

 

Sorry, buddy, it doesn't seem like anyone is playing the victim here but you. Most of your posts have consisted of "stop being so mean to me" over and over. I suggest you get off the cross and stop playing the victim. I, for one, have never asked for anyone's pity.

 

Maybe if you stopped being an arrogant asshole who thinks everyone else the the world is an idiot except yourself, you might find that intelligent conversation you are looking for.

 

It is not I who persecute you, neither is it God, it is yourself.

 

DUH! Of course god doesn't persecute me, HE DOESN'T EXIST, and YOU are far too inept to persecute me. I, unlike many Christians, take FULL responsibility for all of my choices, be they good or bad.

[been there done that]

mwc,

 

If you really were "FREE AND CLEAR" of the book, you would not call yourself an APOSTATE.

 

 

If you used to live in New York but now live in another state, do you still abide by the laws of New York?

 

If you chose to describe yourself as an EX-NEW YORKER, there would definitely be a problem there.

 

An EX-convict is no longer a convict or a criminal.

 

While you were preparing to leave christianity, you DID fall into the "CHRISTIAN CATEGORY" of "APOSTATE", but you no longer fall into that CHRISTIAN category, you are completely free of anything christian (if you wish, but obviously you don't want to be free of anything christian).

 

That's the integral conflict of being ANYTHING that is EX. You have to free yourself of the negative connotation like the ex-con that wants to reform and recover their life.

 

TECHNICALLY, you are an EX-INFANT. Are you an EX TEENAGER also? Do you convict yourself of being an "UNDERAGE DRINKER"?

 

Technically, a person is many EX things, but it is only YOU who convict yourself of the old ways.

 

But if you insist on convicting yourself as "apostate", FEEL FREE!!. In other words, I DON'T CARE (you do realize that I'm not your mother or father, don't you?), there's only so much I can do about explaining that you should free yourself from this imagined apostasy. If you simply INSIST on burning in your own imagined hell no matter how much I explain that you don't have to, I'll respect your free will (everybody has the innate right to choose to have a present hell in their mind or a present heaven in their mind).

[mwc]

If you really were "FREE AND CLEAR" of the book, you would not call yourself an APOSTATE.

Have you even HEARD of a dictionary?

 

American Heritage Dictionary

a·pos·tate (ə-pŏs'tāt', -tĭt)

n. One who has abandoned one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.

 

and here's the etymology for you:

 

1340, "one who forsakes his religion or faith," from L.L. apostata, from Gk. apostasia "defection, desertion, rebellion," from apostenai "to defect," lit. "to stand off," from apo- "away from" (see apo-) + stenai "to stand." Used in non-religious situations (politics, etc.) from 1362.

 

Anything else you need me to look up for you?

 

While you were preparing to leave christianity, you DID fall into the "CHRISTIAN CATEGORY" of "APOSTATE", but you no longer fall into that CHRISTIAN category, you are completely free of anything christian (if you wish, but obviously you don't want to be free of anything christian).

And now that you (should hopefully) know that "apostate" is not a "CHRISTIAN CATEGORY" of ANYTHING your whole "argument" is meaningless to me. I am an apostate. I have have defected from the xian faith.

 

If you used to live in New York but now live in another state, do you still abide by the laws of New York?

 

If you chose to describe yourself as an EX-NEW YORKER, there would definitely be a problem there.

What are you talking about? I realize you are trying so desperately hard to back me into a corner on this issue but the manner in which you're attempting to do it is simply baffling. It is your ignorance of the word that you're basing this "argument" upon and, in addition, you're now trying to make the fallacy of equivocation. I am on the ex-xian site, but check what apostate means again. I think once it sinks in you'll understand why your insistence that we're somehow trapped in some "prison" (where I can only assume you are not) is ludicrous.

 

But unlike yourself, I will grant you some answers to your questions (before you derailed and the whole thing became a major wreck).

 

If I lived in New York but moved I would have no need to follow the laws of New York. Seems like you've got me there. But, if you actually read MY post you'll realize the point was not about obedience. So upon moving I would not (I hope) have amnesia and I would therefore KNOW the laws of New York even though I would no longer require them. If someone from New York were to visit and tell me how they were doing various activities it would not be out of line for me to then say "But those activities are illegal under the LAWS OF NEW YORK" even though I no longer lived there. I could judge the New Yorker by the LAWS of New York. Even if those VERY SAME activities were perfectly legal where I lived. Imagine that.

 

I've also met many a person that has done exactly what you describe. "Hi. I'm <name>. I'm from <location> but I'm originally from NEW YORK." I don't even flinch. I personally don't do this but they do. I've had it happen a number of times. I have no idea how long they've done it or why they're doing it but it was done nonetheless. I sure didn't find a "problem there."

 

But if you insist on convicting yourself as "apostate", FEEL FREE!!. In other words, I DON'T CARE (you do realize that I'm not your mother or father, don't you?), there's only so much I can do about explaining that you should free yourself from this imagined apostasy. If you simply INSIST on burning in your own imagined hell no matter how much I explain that you don't have to, I'll respect your free will (everybody has the innate right to choose to have a present hell in their mind or a present heaven in their mind).

You expose your lack of understanding in this paragraph. You missed the point of my previous post entirely (and you've introduced 4 theological concepts with 2 coming from "that book"). Maybe you should read it again?

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

I never wanted to bring it up before because there would be such a negative reaction, there is an obvious difference between my posts and everybody else's (very common in many forums). My posts are 'self-contained' and rarely (if ever) pick out bits and pieces of other people's posts (whether to oppose the other person OR their message). Almost EVERY single post here at this forum (whether I am in the thread or not) is only a few sentences long (sometimes a paragraph or two) because the post contains NO SUBSTANCE (no actual useful and productive/meaningful discussion of a topic). The posts simply contain ridicule/mockery, anger/hostility, and resentment/hatred (BOILERPLATE POSTS that are almost an exact copy of each other). I can understand being upset (forget about being obsessed with 'anger') that you were burned/betrayed by mankind's view of God (the "christian" game/club), but now that you have escaped "the club", when are you going to return to life/civilization and release yourself from the prison of your mind that you built with the assistance of "the book"?

This right here is your problem. You don't care about what any of us actually say. You just want quick and easy responses to give yourself a pat on the back with because you realize you don't have any actual answers to our questions and you're too much of a coward to admit it. And are you claiming we're uncivilized? Ok, I might not be a Christian, but I'm pretty sure that calling us uncivilized is not loving your neighbor as yourself.

 

I came to this thread under the mistaken impression that it will finally contain INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION, but human nature is that people don't want to be released from the prison of their minds. The courage necessary to leave the safety of the STATUS QUO is rare among humanity.

It's funny how we can take this sentence and apply it to you and the argument makes more sense.

 

I came to this forum months ago thinking that it might not be only aetheists that can champion intelligent conversation about God, and even after reading dozens of posts before I registered, I thought that it could still be possible to stir up intelligent conversation here (silly me), but you find the status quo prison in your mind too comfortable in order that you can remain the ETERNAL VICTIM and solicit the pity of humanity.

 

It is not I who persecute you, neither is it God, it is yourself.

Again, can you please seek therapy for your paranoia that you're suffering from? It'll do wonders for you. Seriously, your whining that you claim is "persecution" is an insult to the real Christian martyrs of history. And answer my question, I will not respond to your posts any further until you answer it Why don't you go pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pluck the shards out of our eyes?

[been there done that]

mwc,

 

 

You used to be of a RELIGIOUS faith (a "RELIGION"). Your particular religion was "CHRISTIAN". Therefore, your category WAS "christian" apostate (just before you left), but no more are you an apostate of christianity because now you have nothing to do with "christianity" (meaning that you can stop calling and thinking of yourself as an "apostate" of christianity,...if you wish).

 

 

EX-christians are not apostates of christianity. You USED TO BE an apostate while you were planning on leaving, but if you insist on using a word that has a bad connotation ("apostate") so that you can persecute yourself, you ultimately have that right, just don't take it out on me or anyone else.

 

TECHNICALLY, you will always be an EX-christian (just like TECHNICALLY, we are all EX-infants), but other than that technicality, we no longer have anything to do with whatever we are "EX" of.

 

(I'm not saying that christianity was valid at all, but as long as you think that it was any kind of spiritual authority, you are free of it).

[Ouroboros]

You used to be of a RELIGIOUS faith (a "RELIGION"). Your particular religion was "CHRISTIAN". Therefore, your category WAS "christian" apostate (just before you left), but no more are you an apostate of christianity because now you have nothing to do with "christianity" (meaning that you can stop calling and thinking of yourself as an "apostate" of christianity,...if you wish).

 

EX-christians are not apostates of christianity. You USED TO BE an apostate while you were planning on leaving, but if you insist on using a word that has a bad connotation ("apostate") so that you can persecute yourself, you ultimately have that right, just don't take it out on me or anyone else.

¿Eh? ¿Estás loco? (Hopefully another language could make you wake up. )

 

So, apostasy is just a transitional form of being, between Christian and Non-Christian? How long exactly? 1 day, 2 days, 1 week? I mean, we're going into the details here and try to analyze the exact definitions.

 

Have you heard about the Way of the Master team? They claim that if you lie once, you are a liar. In other words, the act creates a state of being. Wouldn't the same apply to "apostating" as an act create the state of becoming apostate infinitely?

 

And also, the word apostate is defined as someone who renounces a religious or political belief or principle, and to me the word "renounces" is an active form, not ending, or in the past. It's not defined: someone who renounced ..; but it's defined: someone who renounces. Can you tell the difference?

 

 

TECHNICALLY, you will always be an EX-christian (just like TECHNICALLY, we are all EX-infants), but other than that technicality, we no longer have anything to do with whatever we are "EX" of.

Okay. Ex-Christian is a state, while apostasy is an action, constantly in motion.

[mwc]

You used to be of a RELIGIOUS faith (a "RELIGION"). Your particular religion was "CHRISTIAN". Therefore, your category WAS "christian" apostate (just before you left), but no more are you an apostate of christianity because now you have nothing to do with "christianity" (meaning that you can stop calling and thinking of yourself as an "apostate" of christianity,...if you wish).

No. I used to have a "relationship" with jesus the christ our lord and savior as described in the NT written by the apostles his eyewitnesses. I was "christ like." "Christian" if YOU prefer.

 

However, that doesn't take away from what is now. To "apostatize" is the act. I have done that already. It is in the past. I am now an apostate from the cult. Maybe we should use the word "defect" instead? I've defected. Now I am a defector. I will be a defector unless I return. I will not return so I will remain in that state until one of us passes away (I feel I will be the one to do so). It's simply how things are.

 

EX-christians are not apostates of christianity. You USED TO BE an apostate while you were planning on leaving, but if you insist on using a word that has a bad connotation ("apostate") so that you can persecute yourself, you ultimately have that right, just don't take it out on me or anyone else.

No. This is not what the word means. See the definition again and also what I have just written above. Also, the prefix "EX" means "out of" so why you see it as a negative I'm not quite certain. I am "out of" xianity.

 

And for your enlightenment, I didn't have a "plan" to leave anything. I had numerous plans to *stay*. They did not work out. My exit was abrupt.

 

You see the word apostate as a negative. I do not. As someone who has "defected" I see it as a sign that I successfully escaped a sick and repressive belief system (not "religion" as in "churches" buildings and all that but what is actually written in the texts themselves and the interpretations...yours included)

 

TECHNICALLY, you will always be an EX-christian (just like TECHNICALLY, we are all EX-infants), but other than that technicality, we no longer have anything to do with whatever we are "EX" of.

 

(I'm not saying that christianity was valid at all, but as long as you think that it was any kind of spiritual authority, you are free of it).

So "ex" ("out of") versus "apostate" ("to stand off")? I'll always be "out of" christianity but I'll only "stand off" christianity once? But looking at it like that I could say I only have to get "out of" christianity once making the "ex" a one time event but I'll "stand off" from christianity my whole life. These words are nearly synonyms (though not quite).

 

I will always have been an infant. I will always have been a "christian." I cannot renounce my infancy while still an infant and be an adolescent. Your example is no good. I did apostatize my faith, my "relationship," my "religion," christianity. I am in a state of apostasy. I am an apostate. And damn proud of it.

 

mwc

[jackbauer]

Wow, I couldn't even get through that thread, but this doesn't surprise me. Out of all Christian beliefs, I DETEST Calvinism the most. It is the most cold, cruel, and heartless belief ever created. Lemme guess, they told him he must not have been one of the elect. I can respect a lot of Christians, but I will always hold a bias against calvinists for being such elitest dickheads, just like their god.

[jackbauer]

There is alot that christianity/humanity misunderstands about God because humanity/christianity would rather imagine that they "ACHEIVE worthiness" instead of simply be happy RECEIVING God's gracious/generous love and gifts (a GIFT is a GIFT and requires no commitment in return).

 

But this is what I was taught in Christian Fundamentalism as well. The main belief was that we were being offered a 'free' gift and a ticket to heaven. But one still has to devote their life to god (which is hard when god remains silent) and be 'free' from 'sin'. See, that's where the problem comes in, being saved meant being free from this thing called 'sin' which was described as something dragging us down. Instead of accepting our faults, one had to become saved because their current state is unacceptable to god. Thus, any sin or undesire to praise god would mean a sign of not being saved.

 

See where this would cause stress? Even if you believe you're being offered a free gift, you still question whether or not you have it. I was 'saved' many times through some online mininstries but I didn't feel a thing. Then I would find that there would always be more. 'faith without works is dead' (quote the bible) and one can lose their salvation, yet this was still supposed to be a free gift. Yet, I didn't even know if I had this 'gift' cause it's not exactly staring me in the face.

 

So in summery, there's still twists on the whole 'free gift' idea. Be it making some commentment, repent of sins (a lot which are harming no one), or doing any kind of works (that are YOUR works) to prove that you have god's spirit.