Jump to content

Archived

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

Checkmate

"Awww! Do I HAVE To?"

Recommended Posts

This is a "rant", YET it is about "debating" Xians. So its forum placement can go either way. I'll just put it here for now.

 

"WHY do I need to know the scriptures?"

 

Often we'll argue against Xianity FROM the bible. Sometimes amazing our Xian opponents with the fact that we KNOW scripture. We often feel it is necessary to be able to "intellectually" refute the religion. "How can you say the bible is in error, if you haven't read it?" That's usually the argument we are trying to defuse.

 

But this got me to thinking (a dangerous thing, I know!)...I've rejected Islam. Yet I've NEVER read the Qu'ran.

 

I've rejected Hinduism and yet I've never read the Vedas.

 

I've rejected Mormonism and yet I've never read the Book of Mormon.

 

So...why is it unreasonable to reject Xianity WITHOUT reading the bible? Why MUST I be well-versed in scripture and apologetics JUST to be able to say I gave Xianity a "fair chance" BEFORE I rejected it? I NEVER did that for any OTHER religion.

 

Is it REALLY necessary for an unbeliever to be able to quote scripture like an apologist, just to reject Xianity?

 

Sometimes I feel like I'm in Bible class trying to educate a member of an opposing denomination that MY doctrine has more historical merit than theirs!

 

Something is truly SICK about this situation!

 

While I understand the value of being able to argue from a point of knowledge, it must be recognized that the same rule of thumb is often NOT utilized when refuting belief in OTHER religions.

 

How many of us EX-C's have actually READ through the Qu'ran? Maybe YOU have, but I sure as hell haven't. And I don't plan to. I don't care. "Just because I think it's stupid!", will always be enough of a reason for me.

 

Why can't I do the same with Xianity? Why MUST I be capable of reading Greek and Hebrew? Why MUST I be able to interpret scripture? Why MUST I possess hermenuetic skills, and be able to "exegete" a text?

 

I'm not a Xian any more. Why should I have to study up on what the latest Xian writer has to say about faith and salvation and end times? I don't give two shits about that nonsense anymore! I've wasted enough of my life in this ridiculous pursuit. YOU do it, if that's what floats your boat.

 

I'm glad for the Richard Carriers of the world. "The Professionals", if you will, who study and discuss the arguments against faith in Christ and against religion. More power to them. They make excellent resource material, IF you want it.

 

But as for me and my house...? Fuck it! "Just because I think it's stupid!", is good enough for me. I gave Xianity it's "fair chance". Why do I need to continue my "religious studies" now that I'm an atheist? And I sure as "hell" ain't going off to study the other religions, "just to be fair". Screw that. I don't have to taste horse shit to know I don't want to eat it! Why should THIS be any different?

 

It's like someone said. "It's like hating football, and YET you spend all year long TALKING about how much you hate the game!?" How silly is that?

 

Anyway...that's my 2 cents. :brutal_01:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TK, I would say to you, Don't waste another minute of your life doing something that is unnecessary for you when it brings you misery or discomfort. Life is too precious and too short to waste.

 

If you don't enjoy what you are doing, go find something you do enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK, I would say to you, Don't waste another minute of your life doing something that is unnecessary for you when it brings you misery or discomfort. Life is too precious and too short to waste.

 

If you don't enjoy what you are doing, go find something you do enjoy!

 

Don't get me wrong, Reach.

 

I'm not saying there is no value, nor purpose in challenging religion. If we don't oppose these people, then they'll take over society.

 

I'm simply pointing out the irony of continued "bible study" by atheists and what not.

 

And trust me, the very MOMENT this all becomes "misery" for me, I'll drop it faster than a hot brick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how you feel, TK, and I understood what you meant.

 

Half of the time I suppose I stay in the fight for the reason you mentioned. I continue to study, etc...

 

On other days... I'm just tired of having to remain connected to Christianity, even if it's just on the battlefield of ideas. As long as Christianity continues to be the threat it is, I feel a sense of responsibility to man my battlestation and war against this freak philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Priapus

Must you be anally fisted by angry jailhouse inmates while tied to a hard, steel bedframe to know you wouldn't like it? Or perhaps you would. Some pay good money for that kind of treatment.

 

Ye need not devour Holy Q'ran or the Vedas or the Harry Potter series to stand boldly and say, "No, thank you, I am not interested in that. Thank you. I'll go now."

 

Were you to attempt a debate on their validity, however, then it would indeed be of value for you to study them. Otherwise you risk looking like the stupid one, deserving of the Angry Jailhouse Fistf*ck. But merely to pass on the offering, even though there's a chance they might resonate with you and bring some measure of joy, no, you need not have studied them.

 

 

Thus spake Priapus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I threw away my bible years ago and don't have any desire to read one ever again. I think Cerise said it best in another thread yesterday; scripture can mean anything and nothing. In otherwords, you get from it what you cherry pick out of it. I even noticed this when I was a christian. I always hated the stupid theological debates christians around me would get into. Divorce or not divorce. Baptism by immersion or other. Tongues or none. Eternal security or loss of salvation. I left many a church because of these stupid debates. I hate them now and I hated them then. You don't need the bible to dispute christianity. The burdon is on the christian to show me why the bible is relevant and in order to do that they will have to provide non scriptural evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know how you feel, TK, and I understood what you meant.

 

Half of the time I suppose I stay in the fight for the reason you mentioned. I continue to study, etc...

 

On other days... I'm just tired of having to remain connected to Christianity, even if it's just on the battlefield of ideas. As long as Christianity continues to be the threat it is, I feel a sense of responsibility to man my battlestation and war against this freak philosophy.

 

 

I've recently been thinking about statements like the one you made here. I left christianity over 10 years ago and was not around it and practically didn't think about it for the last 8 or 9 years. Finding this website has filled a need in me that I didn't know existed. Christianity is and probably always will be very much a part of who I am. I suspect that that is true with all church kids like myself; those who were raised in the faith since they were infants through young adulthood. That's ok with me. Who I am is a collection of my past experiences and I have no regrets. Here I can debate and discuss ideas that are related to those experiences and I think that is the need that is filled for me here. At the same time I understand that those who more recently left the faith have different needs and may find themselves going into a burnout stage after some time where they might need to just distance themselves from the whole subject for a time or even forever. Anyway, I don't mean to hijack the thread. You just brought some thoughts to the surface that I've been contemplating.

 

On with the rants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xtians don't have any problem at all dismissing every other religion without reading thier texts. Hell, they rarely even read thier own holy book. Why should we have to? I don't need to see every flavor of horror/monster movie to back the judgemnt that they are not representations of real monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.

 

Do you suppose there's an ex-muslim website, where they don't give the Bible the time of day, but argue all day long about the Quran?

 

It might go something like this:

 

Who cares about 2 Corinthians? Woop-d-do.

 

But, look here at what Allah says in Luqman 031.017! Or better yet, let's examine Al-Hadid 057.013! As you can clearly see.............

 

I guess there is one difference. Christians threaten you with hell. Muslims hunt you down and send you there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hated Bible study when I was a Christian. I can't even stomach the idea of opening the Bible now and trying to read it. *shudder* *SHUDDER* I wish Christianity didn't permeate so much of our society. It's annoying and I didn't really notice it until I started dating a person from New Zealand and saw the difference in our 2 cultures. And I've met other people from other countries and that has just further made it obvious how fundy our society is. Getting back on topic, it is annoying how Christians find no need or reason to prove their Bible is truly the word of god. They seem to find no reason to show why I should actually accept it as any truth. I'm not going to believe it because you tell me so. Prove it to me. It seems like a book of myths that makes me want to puke. But that would be a part of my healing process I imagine since I don't feel the same about the Qu'ran or other faith's holy books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's funny? Christians practically memorize the entire bible (or at least the new testament), but they are totally ignorant of the fact that there were many many more early christian writings.

 

The only reason the bible exists in it's current form is because various councils (primarily the council of Nicea in 325 CE) voted and debated what should be considered canonical.

 

Throw in a quote or two from the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of the Savior, The Gospel of Truth, Basilides, or 50 other books, and the average christian is completely clueless.

 

They'll say, "oh, well those writings were considered spurious and rejected."

 

To the christian: take a closer look at who determined the books you'd be basing your life on.

 

These other writings weren't considered spurious at the time they were written. They were standard christian issue by widely accepted christians until they got voted down. Hell, Marcion was damn near voted the head of the whole church. It was only after he died that they declared him to be a heretic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting thread.

Do you suppose there's an ex-muslim website, where they don't give the Bible the time of day, but argue all day long about the Quran?

Yes there is, and I've been to it, and it's amazing how the arguments are similar to the Christians coming here.

 

My religion is true because my holy book says so.

And I know my holy book tells me the truth in above statement because it says that it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a "rant", YET it is about "debating" Xians.  So its forum placement can go either way.  I'll just put it here for now.

 

"WHY do I need to know the scriptures?"

 

 

You don't. Even if the bible was meticulously flawless in it's construction, a perfectly cohesive story, it wouldn't mean anything.

 

There's no point in arguing about the bible, because they have to first show that God exists before they can go saying he inspired this book.

 

You don't reject the bible out of hand, you reject God out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it's more fun for me to argue Christian doctrine against Christian doctrine and make them resolve the differences. A great example is the old saved by faith/deeds or you are chosen by this dickless God. You see Gene Cook do this all the time, plotting his Christianity against all others. He recently did this with Mormonism and Pelagism. Nice to watch them sweat it out.

 

Once you get a handle on the other and conflicting doctrines that Christianity has necessarily and as a matter of urgency had to do in its quest for authority and by its monetary support from Rome as it during and after the Diocletian persecution - you see why the Bible 2.0 (NT) is so hopelessly mired in contradiction. No sunrise there, it's not like these so-called apostles (which there is no agreement as to the number of them or their names) had the NT to read and weed out and edit the problems between each book.

 

Autopilot from there on. The Bible is really more than an after-thought at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting thread.

 

Do you suppose there's an ex-muslim website, where they don't give the Bible the time of day, but argue all day long about the Quran?

 

Just as Han said, there is. Here's one called Apostates of Islam. Ve-rrrry interestinck!

 

 

 

 

Have I told anyone lately that I hate religion? Well, I DO. :Sheep: Fuck 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the primary reason is most of us claim the title of ex-christian. It's only natural that the focus of the controversies would be from the point of view of christian mythology.

 

We rejected Christianity because we were in it and found it wanting. I don't believe we have any Ex-hindu's around, but I'm sure if we did, they would be fairly conversant w/the texts and such because they lived w/them for a time and are now critical of their contents.

 

Just my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sure none of us would study the darned thing in order to be able to argue with christians intelligently. Although I see it as a big advantage now.

 

We studied the bible to death because we believed it to be the Word of G'odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'm sure none of us would study the darned thing in order to be able to argue with christians intelligently.  Although I see it as a big advantage now.

 

We studied the bible to death because we believed it to be the Word of G'odd.

On the contrary... I study it for the simple reason that by doing so, I can tie their minds in knots by showing that the Bible proves them wrong.

 

 

Hey, I'm stuck at home all the time... I gotta have some fun. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting thread.

 

Do you suppose there's an ex-muslim website, where they don't give the Bible the time of day, but argue all day long about the Quran?

 

It might go something like this:

 

Who cares about 2 Corinthians?  Woop-d-do. 

 

But, look here at what Allah says in Luqman 031.017!  Or better yet, let's examine Al-Hadid 057.013!  As you can clearly see.............

 

I guess there is one difference.  Christians threaten you with hell.  Muslims hunt you down and send you there.

 

 

There is an ex muslim site. I am a member there but I quit posting there because really bad people go there. People that blow up buildings and trains because they have an agenda and an ideology. I wouldn't want to piss someone like that off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it's more fun for me to argue Christian doctrine against Christian doctrine and make them resolve the differences. A great example is the old saved by faith/deeds or you are chosen by this dickless God. You see Gene Cook do this all the time, plotting his Christianity against all others. He recently did this with Mormonism and Pelagism. Nice to watch them sweat it out.

 

What's weird is that I started to do that with the infamous SBF, and then he turned around and complained that I used the Bible against him when I didn't believe in the Bible anymore. So he wouldn't argue with logic, and he wouldn't take logic against his opinion, and he wouldn't accept the Bible as a counter argument either.

 

A very strange fish indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's weird is that I started to do that with the infamous SBF, and then he turned around and complained that I used the Bible against him when I didn't believe in the Bible anymore. So he wouldn't argue with logic, and he wouldn't take logic against his opinion, and he wouldn't accept the Bible as a counter argument either.

 

A very strange fish indeed!

 

Yeah, NOBODY was going to get anywhere with savedbyfear.

 

He wasn't just brainwashed, he was brainSANITIZED.

 

You know, in the movies, how there is a murder, and then the professionals step in and clean the place up?

 

Well it's the same with our SBF. There's no trace left that there once used to be a human being there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's weird is that I started to do that with the infamous SBF, and then he turned around and complained that I used the Bible against him when I didn't believe in the Bible anymore. So he wouldn't argue with logic, and he wouldn't take logic against his opinion, and he wouldn't accept the Bible as a counter argument either.

 

A very strange fish indeed!

I've been pretty sparse on this site as of late so I haven't the joy of sparing with SBF, but I can see from his kiss-my-ass-goodbye thread he left without making too many friends here.

 

Anyway, my guess is that SBF is that variety of Christian we get who is much like the deranged madman, Troy, that we all so love. By the way, how do you stop a madman Christian from drowning? Take your boot off his head. In no way can you reason with these people and they know that they can't be reasoned with. They don't understand, or refuse to understand, that all affirmative positions are either relatively strong or weak, if not outright false and invalid. Using contrary Christian doctrine exposes this readily, and I love to take advantage of it.

 

I am no expert of course, but its pretty apparent that doctrines have developed through the years as reaction to the historical events that encapsulates them. The papal-bull has changed positions over the course of history on civil matters and its no surprise that Christianity has morphed to the events around it and from the events within it. (Consul of Nicea, Trent, etc.)

 

I think Christians are really professing faith in whatever doctrine they subscribe to, ie. in that God is three in one (with no clear biblical support) or if Jesus is of the same or similar substance as God, or faith in their ego-creation of Jesus in their thick-heads. Or at the very least, faith that Christianity is some monolithic religion, which, it has never been and never will be.

 

All the problems of harmonizing accounts or Jesus status as divine can never resolved by all these damn silly, yet damaging Christian doctrines which are so flawed from the get-go based upon that irrational ground - God.

 

 

 

PS. I met this Christian babe recently online and she asked me why I was an atheist. I gave her my testimony and some further explanation and tried to answer her questions, but in doing so I had asked her to resolve the very thing I posted. Saved by faith, or as the Calvie's state, elected by God. She could never resolve it and pretty much gave me the shrug like SBF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this might help...

 

-R.A.

 

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

 

Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say, that their Word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

 

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

 

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if He pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

 

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication -- after this it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

 

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention.

 

When I am told that the Koran was written in heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

 

When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this -- for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so -- it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.