Why I Am No Longer A Xian

[Antlerman]

Do you remember when several years ago, the news reports saying that scientists had determined, on the basis of female mitochondrial DNA, that the human race were all descended from a single woman they called "Eve" - whom they said lived in Ethiopia? They also said she existed about 200,00 years ago. Scientists also said there was evidence of a single male progenitor of the human race, but they said they could only trace him back to about 120,000 years ago. What do you think about these 'findings?'

I think these 'findings' as you chose to put them in quotes are pretty solid. I think it's great and says a lot. It says we are all not so different, and that we are all pretty much of the same human family.

 

What do you think of them? Do you see this as evidence of the Biblical Adam and Eve, or at least a basis for these 'historical characters'?

 

What genetic evidence has been amassed to prove evolution?

You're joking, right? Just do a simple bit of research yourself. It's all over the place out there.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC372862/

 

http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf

 

And for something simple: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/chimp-genetic-code-opens-human-frontiers/#.TmZP8qhijrc

 

 

Tons of it out there if you're willing to set aside your preconceptions it just can't be because it's not how you would imagine it works because the Bible says something different, in your thinking.

 

Does the phenomena of genetic mutation prove evolution? Then trot out the species we have seen evolve.

Look out the window. Look in a mirror.

 

Trot out the beneficial mutations that we can prove led to improved viability and increased progeny, eventually leading to a new species.

Look out the window... Oh heck, here:

 

http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html

 

All these transition fossils show the benefits to survival in their environments, which naturally lead to increased survival through the ability to sexually reproduce. What exact do you need to see?

 

I'm all ears.

Well you know my comment to that.... having ears to hear, does not mean one is willing to listen....

 

I suggest you do more research in human evolution, especially regarding how the mental & physical abilities for speech could have even evolved. There lots of fairy tales and rank speculation.

I'm all ears Ray. Lay the research on me!

 

God created male & female, fully functional, with the capability mental & physical for speech. Nothing else makes sense.

Fully functional? Sure, but not fully developed. We had to learn how to think, and we still are. We were in fact fully functional as an ancient sea sponge, but we evolved. We were fully functional as earlier primates, but we evolved new and improved traits, building up new forms on earlier forms.

 

To say we suddenly appeared in full glory equal to us today is flatly insane. Where is any evidence to support that? That is pure magic. What do you think spoken language is? Why do we use symbols? Do other species? You would be forced to show that there is no precedent for what we are anywhere in the world. This is child-mind thinking and has no supporting evidence.

 

Your magic explanation explains nothing at all. It is useless, on every imaginable level. Useless. Linguists? Magic created it fully formed. Useless to further any understanding Ray.

 

I have to drag this out again after many years since it's so very true:

 

"While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified."

 

From here: http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

 

What value is your anti/quasi-science worth Ray? How has it, or will it benefit anything? Please explain. I can explain why evolution is important to our minds, and to our spiritual growth and well-being as well. Can you do the same how denying it helps any of that? Please, I'm all ears.....

 

 

Edit: As for fully formed humans functioning at our cognitive levels, I would expect anthropology to show at least one society in antiquity with anything near our degree of self-awareness. If you deny evolution, then we should see a static line of human culture and society. What I can offer shows the opposite. As far as I'm aware, there is only evidence showing a progression of awakening minds, evidences in art, religion, and culture. Even the Bible itself says that what came before it was lessons to children. How is this not evolution?

 

If Adam and Eve and their descendants were equal to us then we shouldn't see what we in fact do.

[oddbird1963]

The fact of God's existence is axiomatic - as is the belief that God does not exist. Both are faith statements. However, to live as though God does not exist is the equivalent of living as though gravity doesn't exist - it will result in your demise.

 

You absolutely have never made an effort to understand anything other than what you think you already know, have you?

 

Once again all you offer are caricatures of atheism and not actual atheism, as believed by flesh and blood atheists themselves.

 

Belief in God is not axiomatic. It just seems axiomatic to believers because it's so traditional. A belief that God does not exist is not a faith statement. It is a conclusion. It is an answer to the question "Is there good enough reason to believe that a god exists?" There's no need to expend any energy in a "faith" when there is no credible reason to believe there is something to have faith in.

 

To live as god does not exist is to live as if there are no invisible carnivorous dinosaurs outside waiting to devour me when I go out onto the street. There is just no good reason to bother myself about it. Without some wild-eyed evangelical screaming, cajoling, guilting , shaming and manipulating me into considering the proposition, it would never occur to me to conclude that a god exists.

 

And after looking closely at " the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, moral, and religious proofs for God's existence," there is still no reason to pay any mind to such a baseless assertion.

[bornagainathiest]

Scripture by itself has no more authority over us than you do, which is to say, none at all.

We do not accept that it is God's truth - that is for you to prove via persuasive argument.

Unsupported assertions and appeals to authority are not acceptable forms of argument.

 

When you come up with the goods, than we might listen to what you say... not before.

 

BAA.[/color]

 

The fact of God's existence is axiomatic - as is the belief that God does not exist.

 

Please present clear and coherent arguments to back up that your assertions that...

A. God's existence is a fact.

B. That existence is axiomatic.

C. That non-belief is axiomatic too.

 

Both are faith statements. However, to live as though God does not exist is the equivalent of living as though gravity doesn't exist - it will result in your demise.

 

We do not know what gravity is, how it 'travels' (it is in gravitons?, gravity waves?, it is mediated through empty space or an aether?) - nor what is the content of the attraction, i.e., why should one mass attract another mass? Yet we observe gravity working daily in everyday experiences.

 

God's existence is more than evident in the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, moral, and religious proofs for God's existence.

 

Oh I remember Ray!

You called the Kalam Cosmological Argument irrefutable, remember?

Then you had to take that blunder back. Remember that too?

There are no cosmological 'proofs' of God's existence. Nor teleological ones, nor any others. You are confusing Arguments with Proofs.

 

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!

An argument is not a proof.

 

When a person rejects such evidence, they will reach the only logical conclusion that rejecting truth can lead to - their own demise.

 

Therefore, these arguments do not constitute evidence, either. They remain arguments.

 

Are you unaware of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God?

 

Yes, I am aware of them.

You seem to think of them as proofs, however.

 

If you are aware, have you chosen to ignore them?

 

No, I see them for what they are... arguments, not proofs.

 

If you have rejected the General, Natural revelation of God to Man- then what is your recourse?

 

First, prove that such a thing exists anywhere except in your head.

 

So the first question is: do you believe in a God that created the universe, that created man in His own image & likeness, that we would know Him personally?

 

No to all.

 

Do you believe in a God that desires to communicate with His Creation, especially the human race?

 

No.

 

That God's desire is that we would all live in joy & harmony & love & well-being?

 

No.

 

That God, being Tri-une in nature, desires to share in His own inter-personal perichoresis with others, and so creates a universe which can evidence that type of relationship for others?

 

No.

 

If you do not believe in that God - then you would not believe that God would record His Special, Specific revelation in the Bible.

 

Telling me what I believe now, are we Ray?

 

Where do we start?

 

WE don't start anywhere.

 

YOU start by formulating better arguments than the above.

EPIC FAIL!

 

BAA.

[BrotherJosh]

Just to add as well there is an upcoming podcast by three PHD professors titled, "Bones, Stones and Genes: The Origin of Modern Humans". I suggest certain posters check it out, especially those with dark tinted religious goggles...

 

Where and when did humans arise? What distinguishes us from other species? Did our distant ancestors look and behave like us? When Darwin proposed that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes, he lacked fossil evidence to support his idea. One hundred and fifty years later, the evidence for human evolution is plentiful and growing, including detailed molecular genetics data, an impressive fossil record, and artifacts of early human culture like stone tools.

Leading scientists John Shea of Stony Brook University, Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, and Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, will guide us on a global exploration spanning millions of years to illuminate the rise of modern humans.

 

 

Live Webcast October 6 & 7, 2011 10:00 a.m. ET. Re-webcast 11:00 a.m. PT

 

 

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/

[centauri]

Obviously the issue is not with Scripture - all of which is God-breathed.

You haven't established this.

I don't recall the Bible dropping from the sky.

From what I've read, the canon was voted into place by humans, specifically male Catholic Church clerics of high rank.

 

The issue is that twisted people twist the Scriptures for their own gain.

And Christianity is the main offender in this area.

All of scripture isn’t God-breathed, some of it was concocted by the equivalent of a Madison Avenue advertising and public relations company.

Twisting Old Testament scripture in order to manufacture prophecy fulfillment (which served to advertise and validate Jesus), was practiced throughout the New Testament.

A shining example of this resides in Matthew.

 

Matt 2:14-15

When he(Joseph) arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

 

The original content has nothing to do with Jesus.

Israel is the son and there is no prophecy here.

 

Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

 

Nor does the birth narrative in Matthew show evidence of being God-breathed in relation to the birth narrative in Luke, for the two tales are inconsistent and without any confirmation outside of themselves.

There is no trip to Egypt, no infant death decree, nor any indication of traveling Magi in Luke.

[rayskidude]

Do you remember when several years ago, the news reports saying that scientists had determined, on the basis of female mitochondrial DNA, that the human race were all descended from a single woman they called "Eve" - SNIP-

God created male & female, fully functional, with the capability mental & physical for speech. Nothing else makes sense.

 

Why do you accept what was said about "Eve" as the first Homo sapiens female, yet ignore Neanderthals and all the rest of Homo sapiens' (i.e.,humans) ancestors that were separate species?

 

Who said I accept what scientists said about Ethiopian Eve - I asked what you thought about their pronouncement.

[rayskidude]

What genetic evidence has been amassed to prove evolution? Does the phenomena of genetic mutation prove evolution? Then trot out the species we have seen evolve. Trot out the beneficial mutations that we can prove led to improved viability and increased progeny, eventually leading to a new species. I'm all ears.

 

 

Not my job to teach you basic science that a 3rd grader understands. Skip a lot of classes to pray or something?

 

Nice dodge >> but if you're smarter than a 5th grader, then plz answer the questions.

[oddbird1963]

What genetic evidence has been amassed to prove evolution? Does the phenomena of genetic mutation prove evolution? Then trot out the species we have seen evolve. Trot out the beneficial mutations that we can prove led to improved viability and increased progeny, eventually leading to a new species. I'm all ears.

 

 

Not my job to teach you basic science that a 3rd grader understands. Skip a lot of classes to pray or something?

 

Nice dodge >> but if you're smarter than a 5th grader, then plz answer the questions.

 

It's not a dodge. You're either just willfully ignorant of the scientific evidence or you are pretending to be woefully ignorant. It gets exhausting to have to explain these things to people who won't take the five minutes it takes to gather the information.

[par4dcourse]

Indeed. What does he hope to accomplish, I wonder? Less than stellar arguments and I have yet to deduce any point other than random babble quotes.

[AlphaToOmega]

Do you remember when several years ago, the news reports saying that scientists had determined, on the basis of female mitochondrial DNA, that the human race were all descended from a single woman they called "Eve" - SNIP-

God created male & female, fully functional, with the capability mental & physical for speech. Nothing else makes sense.

 

Why do you accept what was said about "Eve" as the first Homo sapiens female, yet ignore Neanderthals and all the rest of Homo sapiens' (i.e.,humans) ancestors that were separate species?

 

Who said I accept what scientists said about Ethiopian Eve - I asked what you thought about their pronouncement.

 

Not much in the context of this debate.

The two aren't even linked unless you are linking the scientific finding by way of religious induced ignorance.

So I fail to understand why you bring it up?

[agnosticator]

Who said I accept what scientists said about Ethiopian Eve - I asked what you thought about their pronouncement.

 

I'm not a paleoanthropologist, so my opinion as to whether their "pronouncement" is right or wrong is irrelevant. I can say I accept what the consensus of scientists who specialize in evolutionary biology, anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics, genetics, etc. agree on. Besides, they were supposedly the first relatives of Homo sapiens. Before them, there were numerous other species of hominids who were related to modern man. So calling them Adam and Eve is only referring to the first Homo sapiens, unlike the one and only A and E of the Bible.

 

I don't understand how your statement "God created male & female, fully functional, with the capability mental & physical for speech. Nothing else makes sense", can toss aside all the fossil evidence of differing species of hominids preceding Homo sapiens. If Adam and Eve were perfect and complete, more than modern man, how do you explain the total lack of evidence for the "de-evolution" of the fall? IOW, where are the fossils and evidence for Adam, Eve, and all their descendents that were affected by sin? Did they suddenly become numerous types of ape-like creatures? Or do you just think all the fossils found up to now are really apes, and man remained the same since the Fall occurred.

 

Here's a possible species that is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimps. You can believe it or not. It doesn't matter to me.

 

Sahelanthropus tchadensis:

This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. ref.

[Antlerman]

where are the fossils and evidence for Adam, Eve, and all their descendents that were affected by sin? Did they suddenly become numerous types of ape-like creatures?

Actually, if Ray were to say that Adam and Eve were cast out of God's Paradise called Eden, and the result of their sin was to be cast down to earth to crawl up from the dirt as an animal to find redemption in the putting off of their sins, that myth would actually fit the fossil record and every bit of anthropological evidence we have.

 

Of course the story of Eden was something prior to their place on this earth so it would be irrelevant to the facts of earth history and be no contradiction. This would make a much better myth of Adam and Eve for Ray which wouldn't require him to turn away his face from truth; to deny what "God" has shown us about earth through gifting man with reason, if you wish to look at it like that.

[bornagainathiest]

Snip.

 

God's existence is more than evident in the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, moral, and religious proofs for God's existence.

 

Snip.

 

Are you unaware of the philosophical arguments for the existence of God?

 

Snip.

 

Ray, would you like me to teach you the difference between an Argument for the Existence of God and a Proof of the Existence of God?

 

Just ask.

 

I'd be happy to oblige.

 

BAA.

[agnosticator]

Of course the story of Eden was something prior to their place on this earth so it would be irrelevant to the facts of earth history and be no contradiction. This would make a much better myth of Adam and Eve for Ray which wouldn't require him to turn away his face from truth; to deny what "God" has shown us about earth through gifting man with reason, if you wish to look at it like that.

 

I remember as a child (liberal Catholic) lying in bed thinking and fantasizing about my beloved dinosaurs, and how the Church accepted evolution as God's way of providing diverse forms of life. Of course, I threw humans and dinos together because life was more exciting with Tyrannosaurus Rex around! It wasn't until I was a fundagelical that my world was shattered by being told evolution was a satanic trick. It upset and confused me, but I learned to accept it. It was never clear to me what process replaced evolution in those church leaders minds.

[Thumbelina]

 

Thumbelina: Oh my God, literally. Were you fed all of that by faith healers and name it and claim it preachers? It is not as cut and dried as that.

 

Ouroboros said: So it's not self-explanatory or self-interpreting after all. YOU have to interpret the literal verses into something that they're not saying, just to find excuses to make them not mean what they literally mean...

 

 

Thumbelina: It explains itself but the HS illuminates its teachings to soft hearts. Different people understand at different paces and God works with them.

 

Ouroboros: Anyway, the healing wasn't the issue to why I lost my faith. It was the emotional healing in me, in my wife, in my kids, that were lacking. God doesn't answer those prayers either. You can't ask God for comfort or strengthening of you faith. Why? Because he won't do that either. He doesn't heal. He doesn't do shit. Why? Because he doesn't exist. Very simple answer. Maybe you will understand that one day too.

 

 

Thumbelina: You haven't grasped the concept of the bible being self explanatory with the HS leading .

 

 

Ouroboros said: But that's not self-explanatory, is it? It's Holy-Spirit-Explanatory, if anything.

 

 

Thumbelina: They go hand in hand. One uses the biblical method of comparing scripture with scripture and spiritual with spiritual and the HS illuminates ones mind to the precious truths in the bible. The HS convicts us and enlightens our minds.

 

Ouroboros said: So, are you suggesting that I didn't have the Holy Spirit?

 

Thumbelina: No. Believers receive the HS at baptism, the believer then has to allow the HS influence to grow.You were not in a position to understand certain concepts ( e.g. God is with you in your trials; Jesus too, asked the Father to let that bitter cup pass from Him but He had to go through pain for a greater good) that was needed to buttress your faith. From what you have been saying you did try to understand better, only God knows how and why you lost your faith.

 

Ouroboros said: The problem was that I didn't hear the HS. I needed to hear God, or get a feeling, when I was in need, but I didn't... at all... still waiting many years later.

 

Thumbelina: It's more of a KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING than a feeling and it comes from a personal walk with God and an understanding of His character.

 

 

Ouroboros said: If God exists, then it's God who chose to let himself unknown and absent. I tried. I seriously tried for many years to keep my faith. But of course you will deny such a thing because you believe it's impossible.

 

Thumbelina: Oh it is very possible, Solomon of all people, left God in his old age to run around with the pagans and do his own thing . However, he went back to God when he realized he made a mistake.

 

 

Thumbelina said: I respectfully disagree with you about God not answering prayers but I do understand how you feel when you are suffering so. God was/is real to me and I pray that he ALWAYS let me remember the good times we had together.

 

 

Ouroboros said: The day you end up in trouble and God is not answering... you'll start wondering about your belief. When it keeps on happening for years, you start doubting. When you ask God to help you overcome the doubts, and nothing happens, you lost faith.

 

Thumbelina: I can see how someone can say that when they are in a dark valley . It's important to build on the Rock for when the storms come one can avoid falling away.

[CatholiKitty]

Thank you, Thumbelina, for putting some effort and thought into your post rather than simply cutting and pasting Scripture. It's a nicely crafted, coherent story. I just disagree with the premise.

 

 

It's basically a few of the themes in the biblical narrative in my own words courtesy of Par's anti parable.

 

What is wrong with scripture? To us believers, it has a wealth of meaning but why are skeptics bothered by it so?[...]

 

I've read a good portion of ya'll's discussion, but this is the point that stuck with me. I would say that the problem comes from the different sources of knowledge: logic, empiricism, and revelation.

 

Logic -> Used in philosophy and math.

Method: Start with most simple observations and premises that most everyone can agree on. Decide on rules that decide how these premises can interact; e.g. if P implies Q, and P is true, then Q is true. Build upwards from interactions of basic premises and their logical conclusions.

Weakness: Basic premises can never be proven true through logic. The truths of the foundation, even if agreed to unanimously, is forever uncertain.

Strength: Naturally self consistent. If an errror occurs, the whole structure can be torn down and rebuilt, hopefully as something even closer to Truth.

 

Empiricism -> Used in Science!

Method: Observe events in controlled conditions ad naseum until an agreeably reasonable conclusion can be drawn. Rinse and repeat for everything in the universe.

Weakness: Conclusions are ultimately only true statistically. Human error, instrument error, and unknown factors can skew results and conclusions.

Strength: Observable conclusions can be used to manipulate events precisely. E.g. almost all of technology.

 

Logic and Empiricism often work hand-in-hand to advance each other. It works out very well most of the time.

 

Revelation -> Used in religion.

Method: Higher, all-knowing powers give knowledge to a human through various means.

Weakness: Other humans have only the word of the first human(s) to receive the revelation. There are trust issues involved.

Strength: If legit, it's unarguable and absolutely true.

 

 

Skeptics are...well, skeptical about the validity of revelation-based scripture. They prefer the physically-based empiricism and mentally-based logic. I don't think that many would say that scripture has no meaningful points to make, but to them, throwing out a scripture quote as hard fact in a rational debate has as much meaning as shouting out a cookie recipe while discussing politics. Sure, cookies are good, and poor people would love to have more cookies, but the recipe alone won't solve the socio-economic problems of feeding the poor.

 

If you're coming here to discus things, then you're on their turf (Yes, yes, you may say that everything is God's domain, but consider this site a mental extension of their collective free will.). You have to meet them on their terms here, or you will be treated the same as the child that kept shouting about cookies.

[Yask]

The biggest mistake xians make is our reasons for deconverting. Since the babble is parable-ridden I thought maybe they would understand this, my personal story in parable.

 

My name's Numan....

 

WWRD?

What Would Rod Do?

 

Rod? Rod? Rod! Answer the damn question Rod! *pushes intercom button* Is white noise an answer? Really?!

 

Priceless piece. If you authored that you should copyright and make Rod pay now, damn it. Right now!

[Ravenstar]

"It is possible to be a True Believer (in one of the many versions of the religion) and learn enough to keep advancing in the faith and be saved eventually."

 

I'm not near as learned as some others here..and obviously not as learned as you, but this just does not follow. Which versions? All of them? There's a whole lot of versions - where do you think this advancement begins? Catholicism or maybe Pentecostal?

 

If this is true then it's obvious from the statement that YOU think you have achieved this 'advanced state of being saved. eventually'. Please DO enlighten us - you wouldn't want one of us to be LOST by starting too late at the wrong end of this spectrum, would you? and how does one know where one is on this version scale, or is it just YOU that would know this - is there enough time in this life to even do this?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that one will be saved "eventually" by trying different versions of faith? I only remember ONE version. I must have missed that scripture - meh, it happens.

 

Do you have any conception of just how arrogant and illogical you come across as?

[Thumbelina]

"It is possible to be a True Believer (in one of the many versions of the religion) and learn enough to keep advancing in the faith and be saved eventually."

 

I'm not near as learned as some others here..and obviously not as learned as you, but this just does not follow. Which versions? All of them? There's a whole lot of versions - where do you think this advancement begins? Catholicism or maybe Pentecostal?

 

If this is true then it's obvious from the statement that YOU think you have achieved this 'advanced state of being saved. eventually'. Please DO enlighten us - you wouldn't want one of us to be LOST by starting too late at the wrong end of this spectrum, would you? and how does one know where one is on this version scale, or is it just YOU that would know this - is there enough time in this life to even do this?

 

Where in the Bible does it say that one will be saved "eventually" by trying different versions of faith? I only remember ONE version. I must have missed that scripture - meh, it happens.

 

Do you have any conception of just how arrogant and illogical you come across as?

 

 

To whom were you speaking?

 

God meets a person where they are at. He did not come to save the righteous http://bible.cc/romans/5-8.htm ; http://bible.cc/mark/2-17.htm God looks at a persons MOTIVES and the pattern of their lives. Are they willing to follow His will if they are AWARE of it? If someone is ignorant of a sin God overlooks it (I am not talking about willful ignorance).

 

The Christian is in the process of being saved. Christ justifies the Christian and it is up to the Christian to continue in the faith and maintain a saving relationship with God. God has promises to the believer that trusts in Him eg. http://bible.cc/john/10-28.htm John 10:28. You are asking about the assurance of salvation. One has to take up their cross DAILY and hold on to God's promises. He is not willing for anyone to perish so as long as a person is choosing Him, the word says that God is faithful to complete the work He began in the believer.; http://bible.cc/philippians/1-6.htm Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it say that one will be saved "eventually" by trying different versions of faith? I only remember ONE version. I must have missed that scripture - meh, it happens.

 

You misunderstood what was said. God appeals to everyone's heart and for some peope, in their search for God, they happen to experience different religions but as God sees that they are willing to follow Him He gives them more light.

 

The texts says Christians ought to be CONFIDENT because we have a more SURE word of prophecy http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-19.htm so why shouldn't we be confident about it?

[Thumbelina]

A-man said:

Jesus says, “You are the light of the world."

 

 

I note the word YOU. YOU are the light. That is something inside us.

 

 

Jesus says, "let your light shine before others"

 

 

 

 

 

But the bible says: Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. http://bible.cc/john/8-12.htm and there's the cross references which coincides with the Christian doctrine that says for without me [Jesus] ye can do nothing. http://bible.cc/john/15-5.htm ; Christ is our righteousness; if we depend on Him and His teachings we will gradually come to be like Him.

 

 

Humans WANT to think that we aren't evil but God says we are and people are not comfortable with that. There would not have been a multiplicity of religions or Christian sects if people will let the bible explain what it means by going back and forth throughout the bible and let the HS teach us what God wants to impress upon us AND follow what it says. Instead some use private interpretations. I hope you understand what I mean now?

 

A-man and others seem to think we don't need God or God is within us as evidenced here: "Some of us have redefined God as something internal to ourselves and some of us have just dropped the concept altogether." #22) http://www.ex-christ...993#entry687993

and in A-man's post as well as in numerous posts on the web. A-man used scripture to prove his private interpretation but his intepretation is not biblical; the bible explains what IT means.

I'm bewildered and flattered you would read what I say, but not surprised it eludes you.

 

I was supposed to answer this before but the site had crashed.

 

Really, you were flattered? Eh, like the guy in this thread: http://www.ex-christ...192#entry685192 , I don't understand much of what you write but I did think you were VERY quiet and laid back UNTIL I sort of yanked your chain in one of your threads Then I thought " A-man is sassy/cool!" Eh, you made me laugh. I saw that you wrote some stuff from the bible that surprised me and it actually wasn't anti bible so then I thought " Hmmm, A-man has been holding out with some of that biblical knowledge."

 

 

You have no idea of anything you talk, and talk about. You are doing nothing but trying to reason truth with your head, and quite miserably at that. I would try to teach you, but you believe you already know. Your heart screams fear and ignorance.

 

I think you are projecting Aman I don't really want to argue, another sassy/cool fellow told me I argue too much but darn it, skeptics are ...

[Antlerman]

You misunderstood what was said. God appeals to everyone's heart and for some peope, in their search for God, they happen to experience different religions but as God sees that they are willing to follow Him He gives them more light.

What if that 'more light' comes from leaving Christianity because it holds God back in them with all their silly insistence of a literal belief in things like the creation story, the innerrancy of the Bible, dogmatic insistence on cultural traditions as God's laws, or views of God which are suited best for the minds of primitives, such as a God who sends people to and eternal hell? Would you embrace that person on that path, or judge and condemn them because they don' believe like you?

 

The texts says Christians ought to be CONFIDENT because we have a more SURE word of prophecy http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-19.htm so why shouldn't we be confident about it?

So, you rely on external beliefs for your confidence in God? That doesn't sound like a relationship to me. That sounds like dogma. Why should I step backwards like that? Why don't you step forward and cast off ignorance. Is your faith able to withstand changing how you believe, or are you going to keep relying on your understanding?

[Thumbelina]

You are just not getting the concept of the bible being self explanatory with the HS leading . I respectfully disagree with you about God not answering prayers but I do understand how you feel when you are suffering so. God was/is real to me and I pray that he ALWAYS let me remember the good times we had together.

 

Hey, I'm like thinking, I'm a nice guy could do with a few dollars.

Any chance you could pray that God gets me ohh, say $20,000 from unexpected sources real quick like?

I promise I'll be good.

Even pay him back by charitable donations.

I'm placing a car loan for a Dodge I need over the phone as I type I'm so confident he won't let me down.

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

James 4:3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

[Thumbelina]

You misunderstood what was said. God appeals to everyone's heart and for some peope, in their search for God, they happen to experience different religions but as God sees that they are willing to follow Him He gives them more light.

What if that 'more light' comes from leaving Christianity because it holds God back in them with all their silly insistence of a literal belief in things like the creation story, the innerrancy of the Bible, dogmatic insistence on cultural traditions as God's laws, or views of God which are suited best for the minds of primitives, such as a God who sends people to and eternal hell? Would you embrace that person on that path, or judge and condemn them because they don' believe like you?

 

The texts says Christians ought to be CONFIDENT because we have a more SURE word of prophecy http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-19.htm so why shouldn't we be confident about it?

So, you rely on external beliefs for your confidence in God? That doesn't sound like a relationship to me. That sounds like dogma. Why should I step backwards like that? Why don't you step forward and cast off ignorance. Is your faith able to withstand changing how you believe, or are you going to keep relying on your understanding?

 

 

More light can NEVER come from leaving Christianity, according to the bible, that will be an illusion. The bible teaches that God wants to appeal to our reason. Whoever taught you about eternal hell was teaching a doctrine of devils. It is not up to humans to condemn others but Christians ought to invite others to meet the God of love.

 

God's Spirit dwells within believers but believers need to invite Him in daily. Oh , it is a relationship, He loves us soooo much. God's laws are called the laws of liberty and a Christian believes that faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God. While Christians should not be dogmatic they ought to exhort with doctrine http://bible.cc/2_timothy/4-2.htm ; that's how faith grows, when a person UNDERSTANDS the Word like the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Christians NEED to rely on God and not their own understanding.

[Antlerman]

Really, you were flattered? Eh, like the guy in this thread: http://www.ex-christ...192#entry685192 ,

Oh hey, I didn't see that! A special discussion about me. I'm flattered. I think I'm getting better at expressing my thoughts about this stuff now. We'll see. It's taken a lot of deep-diving and a lot of weeding the garden so to speak to see and to experience this with greater clarity. Let's see how I do going forward. Who knows, it might even make sense to you.

 

The thing is Thumbs, those in that thread who say they have a hard time getting what I say said it was because they don't get the whole draw to spirituality. It was Florduh who said that. But, you, who claim to have that, should be able to hear some of that, even if it sounds like a foreign language to what you're accustomed to as a Christian who thinks in pretty literal terms. Do you ever listen with another set of ears to something that doesn't come from your trust in some so called authority? Believe me, I doubt you've moved past the baby-bottle of your 'faith'. Could you ever see yourself saying, "There is so much in my heart that I hear that contradicts what I'm being told," that you have no choice but to say goodbye to your religion?

 

This is why I say often times to you, you place your beliefs above God. Ponder this.

[Antlerman]

More light can NEVER come from leaving Christianity, according to the bible, that will be an illusion.

Oh, but it's not!

 

Again Thumbs, you rely on some external source - and one that is mediated by your limited knowledge and understanding, to speak of things which are internal. I cannot begin to tell you how much light in the world and in me there is today for me! And I am not talking about head-knowledge stuff. Even that is most surely more reliable than your doctrinal beliefs, but that is not where it comes from for me. That is simply that power of knowledge in one hand, and the grounding of spirit in the other. The world is open before me. I breath in the soul of the world and exhale the light of life in return to it. The universe lives in me, and I hear and see the soul of the world in my very being.

 

I could could go into great length on this, but that would doubtless confuse you as it shouldn't be that one who doesn't believe like you could taste and even become that very 'bread of life' to use your language. You have no idea of what you speak. It's all theoretical. I have touched the Face of God, so to speak, and "heaven" pours its light into the soul, become that in myself. (These are all highly symbolic words, by the way and I do not take them as literal factual things - they are symbolic of the essence, the nature, and the experience. They are expressions of what transcend, not science facts).

 

So, you were saying?

 

The bible teaches that God wants to appeal to our reason.

Such as when he says "lean not to your own understanding"?

 

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with embracing reason! The only thing I will say is that to access that level of experience, it is not through reason you attain it. It is an internal realization in the subjective self. It is not external and objective, so reason cannot penetrate it. It is direct knowledge through direct experience.

 

Do you embrace reason?

 

Whoever taught you about eternal hell was teaching a doctrine of devils.

Nice to know you don't believe what other Christians do. There may be hope for you!

 

God's Spirit dwells within believers but believers need to invite Him in daily. Oh , it is a relationship, He loves us soooo much. God's laws are called the laws of liberty and a Christian believes that faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word of God. While Christians should not be dogmatic they ought to exhort with doctrine http://bible.cc/2_timothy/4-2.htm ; that's how faith grows, when a person UNDERSTANDS the Word like the disciples on the road to Emmaus. Christians NEED to rely on God and not their own understanding.

My growing came when I reached the limits of where I could go being told to find it in the Bible.

 

So how do you rely on God? Would you do so, even if it meant rejecting the poison of religious dogma and errors of beliefs? To the point that everything you thought you knew about your beliefs were not a source of reliable ground? That it was "shifting sand" that you were building your house on, all the while you were being told to trust it as it was "the Word of God"? Would you leave your religion in favor of finding light, or are you relying on your understanding, trusting in others words and not what is in you calling you forward?