A Serious Concern About Doctrine Being Taught In Some Churches

[LivingLife]

Dear Doktor

 

Here is my summary of your pathetic religion based on five years intensive study and research.

 

The preamble is from a thread examining the historicity of jeebus

A person may have existed but IMO he was likely a rebel and possibly one that threw religion back in the face of folk. The stories probably became embellished. The mid acts folk have pretty much the same conclusion albeit they still believe Jesus was real. Their whole premise is that Paul was a false apostle appointed/directed by the romans and when you think about it, most of the NT is allegedly authored by him and his cronies and does tend to conflict many times with the gospels. If any of this were true, why did the alleged disciples not play a bigger influence in the NT, they fade out out relatively quickly if you take the books chronologically. Negating the miracles which probably never happened and other embellishments, there does seem to be an evolution of theology. All the alleged miracles we only have Paul's word on it and not supported by any other witnesses which is contrary to the Jewish law of needing to have this.

 

It has been shown, that John the gospel writer, the epistles of John and Revelation are three different authors by virtue of the writing style in the original Greek. The dating of the gospels in approx 70-100 years after the fact and we have two different endings for Mark.

 

When you take these facts into consideration, you cannot but wonder how much more is tampered with and made up. By the time of the council of Nicea, the destruction of library at Alexandria, it is obvious, there was an agenda at the council of Nicea. A state religion was required as the Roman empire was failing. Even so there was a major split back then in what we now know as the Greek Orthodoxy and what most of us were exposed to the Roman Orthodoxy. The finding of scrolls they missed in the gnostic gospels really illustrates the fact that there were so many differing stories/versions.

 

The compilation of the 4 gospels to supposedly reflect the closest "same" accounts falls flat as now we see in translation to English, the stories do not match up. Back then most of it had to be word of mouth as scribes were an elite bunch. Even in the day of the OT, the masses were likely illiterate and took what their priests and prophets said on good faith. They probably never dreamed back then we would develop the skills to date and validate stuff not to mention the populace would become mostly literate.

 

Even today, few believers even read the bible and if they do, they follow programs like read the bible in one year with a guide that explains what they want you to believe. It is only when you start digging past the what is the accepted norms you start to find all the BS associated with the religion. The roots of the "early church" are really mythical stories folk believe.

 

The Jewish converts probably reverted back to their roots as Peter really was no charismatic leader. This probably left a void that a character like Paul picked up and ran with. It is obvious to the discerning reader, even at that stage, there were already differences in opinion/theology. Claiming Paul was the one to lead the gentiles was a convenient way of covering the fact that they were inventing a new religion to incorporate pagan practices etc. This Paul/Saul character only comes into the picture at Stephen the martyr's execution, prior to that, there is no interaction with the Jews and the idea he was a Roman citizen also leaves one wondering how a Jew, part of the occupied Roman empire could become one unless he turned his back on their culture. He claims to have been a Pharisee yet everything he proceeds to introduce deviates from what should have been very strong roots in his alleged culture.

 

So yes, maybe there was a man whose name was Joshua ben someone but I seriously doubt it was a man that claimed to be god unless he was a pantheist of sorts. Probably a wise and philosophical man that met his demise as he was offering freedom from religion. You have to really be silly not to see he allegedly opposed everything that the religious of the day embraced and really odd that this was supposed to be the laws/traditions he, the man-god, decreed so many years previously. Does that suggest he got it wrong and had to revise it AGAIN or is it simply someone that saw through the BS of the system.

 

Now as time passes they start borrowing/embellishing tales of other pagan man gods and stuff like virgin births to make this mere mortal into a demi-god and disciples. Greek mythology and all their gods had the concept of mating with humans producing demi-gods. For the folk to forsake those beliefs for the "one true god" they needed a demi god and a tale to go along with it for the general populace to buy into the new myth.

 

To give the story more credence, they hijacked the Jewish faith and appended their scriptures to that. I am of the opinion the Romans saw that the Jews had a pretty good governing system which probably at that time had evolved to be less violent and adopted it. If you cannot defeat them in battle, control them in their minds.

 

As the Roman empire diminished in Europe, they simply educated the monarchy and aristocracy in Latin, Passed on their myth and wallah, you have a king's decree enforcing the myth. History shows us that the crusades were brutal and now empire became one driven from a perspective this is all for god (king and country).

 

And here we sit with the very successful results of that endeavour so many years ago. A study of the Roman empire and how it was when Caesar was considered god, the priesthood associated, much of that custom is incorporated into the RC faith. The pope became Caesar2.0 and control politically and financially was guaranteed. No longer did they need to send expensive armies to conquer the lands, they simply sent priests.

 

Much of the woo woo stuff we have today wrt dispensationalism, specifically the variety of rapture and an impending return of Jesus was invented by Jesuit priests posing as converts to protestantism.

 

In the late 1800's we saw the introduction of many new sects. Even the one I grew up in, we were taught that it was a direct descendant of the early church in Judea, turned out it was some Irish dude in the late 1800's that had multiple mistresses and many illegitimate offspring that started the church. This cult is very similar to the JW's and Mormons but the point I am making here is that folk simply started taking what was an excellent con and revising it and implementing it as some stark new revelation commonly known as making crap up as you go along.

 

This pattern can be seen in ALL new churches that started in the 1900's.

 

My research was not limited to the USA and I examined brands you Americans probably have never even heard of. All of them claim origins to the early church but the reality is, they are all lying.

 

Living in SA and having a history similar to the USA, the way religion played a part of control in cahoots with government is evident. Your average believer is unaware of this.

 

The big and obvious question everyone should ask, a god that is supposed to be micromanaging his "creation" why did he stop speaking 2000 years ago? Since then all we have are very very old tales that have no real value in modern society.

 

A very interesting thing I read somewhere is that when a new church springs up with a new vision and a new revelation, it takes a mere 40 years for it to lose its original identity. I think if you look at some churches in the US and even here is SA, you will see this happening.

 

The one difference in Africa compared to the US, creationism was never taught is schools although religion was still part of and is still part of them by virtue of what we call an assembly, a scripture reading and perhaps a prayer by the headmaster. Other than that, real science and evolution is taught. You could say the Brit system evolved faster than the US. We really have a very tiny minority here that want both taught but they are not even a blip on the radar screen. I am 53 and never once was taught the genesis account outside of religious studies and/or church. Unless you were Jewish, the assemblies were compulsory. Most of the songs were Church of England hymns.

 

In a nutshell that is what my research/studies revealed to me. It took approx 5 years but a lifetime of questioning.

[Margee]

 

This is the reason that I won't be posting anymore.

Same shit - different person.....The life and adventures of 'Santa Claus'........

 

[Deva]

Aww we ran him off after only 8 pages?! Why would anyone come to a site for EX-CHRISTIANS nonbelievers to discuss heresy vs. orthodoxy?

 

All he really wanted to do was preach to us. Good riddance.

[mymistake]

When you take these facts into consideration, you cannot but wonder how much more is tampered with and made up. By the time of the council of Nicea, the destruction of library at Alexandria, it is obvious, there was an agenda at the council of Nicea. A state religion was required as the Roman empire was failing. Even so there was a major split back then in what we now know as the Greek Orthodoxy and what most of us were exposed to the Roman Orthodoxy. The finding of scrolls they missed in the gnostic gospels really illustrates the fact that there were so many differing stories/versions.

 

Now wait a minute. Do you know something about the cause of the fire at Alexandraia. Are you saying the tragedy was convenient for someone who took advantage of the situation? Are you saying it was intentional arson?

 

Interesting.

[Ouroboros]

Aww we ran him off after only 8 pages?! Why would anyone come to a site for EX-CHRISTIANS nonbelievers to discuss heresy vs. orthodoxy?

 

All he really wanted to do was preach to us. Good riddance.

Like I said, she just wanted a crowd that would agree with her. She probably didn't get it in other forums. Perhaps she thought non-Christians would agree that fundamentalists and extremists are destructive but didn't realize that we would also consider her version of religion harmful. She got more than she asked for.

[blackpudd1n]

Aww we ran him off after only 8 pages?! Why would anyone come to a site for EX-CHRISTIANS nonbelievers to discuss heresy vs. orthodoxy?

 

All he really wanted to do was preach to us. Good riddance.

Like I said, she just wanted a crowd that would agree with her. She probably didn't get it in other forums. Perhaps she thought non-Christians would agree that fundamentalists and extremists are destructive but didn't realize that we would also consider her version of religion harmful. She got more than she asked for.

 

Gone already? Damn. I was going to ask her to call up jesus and let him know I'll be waiting for his call

 

I've asked other christians to to get god to call me before, but he never rang. I now see the error of my ways- it was because I didn't get a Bona Fide True Christian to ask him for me. Damn. I'll probably never come across another True Christian again who can ask god to place that call.

[Ouroboros]

Gone already? Damn. I was going to ask her to call up jesus and let him know I'll be waiting for his call

 

I've asked other christians to to get god to call me before, but he never rang. I now see the error of my ways- it was because I didn't get a Bona Fide True Christian to ask him for me. Damn. I'll probably never come across another True Christian again who can ask god to place that call.

I know, right. In the end, they're all false prophets. (Or is it phalse profits? )

 

Next time I will ask the True Christian™ to pray to God to tell them something that's secret and personal, just to test their God-connection.

[blackpudd1n]

Gone already? Damn. I was going to ask her to call up jesus and let him know I'll be waiting for his call

 

I've asked other christians to to get god to call me before, but he never rang. I now see the error of my ways- it was because I didn't get a Bona Fide True Christian to ask him for me. Damn. I'll probably never come across another True Christian again who can ask god to place that call.

I know, right. In the end, they're all false prophets. (Or is it phalse profits? )

 

Next time I will ask the True Christian™ to pray to God to tell them something that's secret and personal, just to test their God-connection.

 

Excellent idea. We can start with my first and middle name and why I was named that way, after all, I'm sure god was very pleased the day I was named. Such a good, christian name, so full of good, christian meaning.

 

Thanks, MOTHER.

[LivingLife]

When you take these facts into consideration, you cannot but wonder how much more is tampered with and made up. By the time of the council of Nicea, the destruction of library at Alexandria, it is obvious, there was an agenda at the council of Nicea. A state religion was required as the Roman empire was failing. Even so there was a major split back then in what we now know as the Greek Orthodoxy and what most of us were exposed to the Roman Orthodoxy. The finding of scrolls they missed in the gnostic gospels really illustrates the fact that there were so many differing stories/versions.

 

Now wait a minute. Do you know something about the cause of the fire at Alexandraia. Are you saying the tragedy was convenient for someone who took advantage of the situation? Are you saying it was intentional arson?

 

Interesting.

This was a long time ago I did my research. This is merely a brief summary of my findings leading to my deconversion.

 

If you spend 5 years researching, you should come pretty much to the same conclusions. Bear in mind I was not looking to deconvert, I was looking for that last straw to hold onto that this BS I had learned was the truth.

 

The gnostic gospels that were discovered did not do it for me, it merely reinforced the realisation that it was all made up BS. You need only look up the apocalypse of Peter and his rendition of eschatology is more violent than Revelation. The Shepherd of Hermanus(sp?) was in earlier renditions of scripture and replaced revelation in the canon for awhile, just as bad.

 

The council of Nicea ess was compilation of doctrine to suit the agenda of the Roman Empire, nothing holy or religious about it.

[centauri]

This is where subjective interpretation exhibits itself.

Isa 52 and 53 speak of a servant and the servant was repeatedly identified in the prior chapters as Israel.

Israel is personified in Isaiah.

The suffering of the nation and eventual restoration would be a light to the gentiles, showing them who the true god is.

It doesn't say anything about God canceling his rules on sacrifices.

The gospel preaches that a human sacrifice atones for sin but a human is not a valid sacrifice for sin according to God's law.

 

No one ever had the interpretation you gave until liberal scholars started arguing for it.

The interpretation I provided is a fairly standard Jewish one.

Are you classifying Jews as liberal scholars?

In fact, Isaac Ben Abraham of Troki (1533-1594) provides this same interpretation in his work "Hizzuk Emunah" which can be found here:

http://faithstrength...l#ISA053001_122

 

 

¹³ Behold, My servant will prosper,

He will be high and lifted up and ^[h]greatly exalted.

¹⁴ Just as many were astonished at you, My people,

So His appearance was marred more than any man

And His form more than the sons of men.

¹⁵ Thus He will sprinkle many nations,

Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;

For what had not been told them they will see,

And what they had not heard they will understand.

Where do you see Jesus in the following?

Who is declared to be the servant?

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

¹ Who has believed our message?

And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

² For He grew up before Him like a tender ^[a]shoot,

And like a root out of parched ground;

He has no stately form or majesty

That we should look upon Him,

Nor appearance that we should ^[b]be attracted to Him.

³ He was despised and forsaken of men,

A man of ^[c]sorrows and acquainted with ^[d]grief;

And like one from whom men hide their face

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

This is the personification of the servant.

Contrary to this passage, Jesus had crowds of admirers following him.

 

⁴ Surely our ^[e]griefs He Himself bore,

And our ^[f]sorrows He carried;

Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,

^[g]Smitten of God, and afflicted.

⁵ But He was ^[h]pierced through for our transgressions,

He was crushed for our iniquities;

The chastening for our ^[i]well-being fell upon Him,

And by His scourging we are healed.

⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray,

Each of us has turned to his own way;

But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all

To ^[j]fall on Him.

⁷ He was oppressed and He was afflicted,

Yet He did not open His mouth;

Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,

And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,

So He did not open His mouth.

This is more personification of the servant and most of it is in past tense, written long before Jesus appeared.

Contrary to this passage, Jesus did open his mouth when he was before Pilate.

 

⁸ By oppression and judgment He was taken away;

And as for His generation, who considered

That He was cut off out of the land of the ^[k]living

For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

⁹ His grave was assigned with wicked men,

Yet He was with a rich man in His death,

Israel was cut off from their home by being taken away to exile.

Jesus did the opposite of what is described in verse 9.

He was with the wicked in his death and assigned a grave with the rich.

 

Because He had done no violence,

Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

The righteous remnant of Israel are the ones who better fit this description.

Zeph 3:13

The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

 

Jesus did do violence at the Temple and to a fig tree.

Jesus also lied to the high priest in John 18:20 who was questioning him about his teaching activity.

Jesus also undermined the food law in Mark 7, which is also deceit.

 

¹⁰ But the LORD was pleased

To crush Him, ^[l]putting Him to grief;

If ^[m]He would render Himself as a guilt offering,

He will see His ^[n]offspring,

He will prolong His days,

And the ^[o]good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

¹¹ As a result of the ^[p]anguish of His soul,

He will see ^[q]it and be satisfied;

By His knowledge the Righteous One,

My Servant, will justify the many,

As He will bear their iniquities.

¹² Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,

And He will divide the booty with the strong;

Because He poured out ^[r]Himself to death,

And was numbered with the transgressors;

Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,

And interceded for the transgressors.

The restored nation of Israel, having suffered at the hands of gentiles, will show the world who the one God is and as a result God will be glorified.

Gentiles will find redemption and come to know the one true God through the suffering of his servant Israel.

God's law as displayed through Israel would be a light to the nations:

 

Isa 51:4(NLT)

“Listen to me, my people. Hear me, Israel, for my law will be proclaimed,

and my justice will become a light to the nations.

 

It ties right back to what was written in Isa 41-49

 

Isa 41:8-10

But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.

Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

 

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Unless a person ignores what this passage is actually saying. how is this not talking about someone giving up their life, dying in each of our places, and bearing our sin, making us righteous?

It's a metaphorical passage where a nation or people is personified and spoken of as one person.

The nation of Israel dies by being conquored and taken into exile.

They suffer at the hands of gentiles who do not know the true God.

Israel bears their sins by suffering, and when God restores Israel, gentiles will see the error of their ways and come to know the one true God.

Zech 8:22-23

Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.

Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

 

People of the world will turn to Jews, not Christians, for knowledge of God.

The restored nation of Israel facilitates this, not Jesus.

Adios

[midniterider]

 

However, there is one and only one God, according to the God of the Bible.

 

But since the bible is a work of fiction its contents are irrelevant.

 

It is interesting the level of brainwashing that some Christians have. She 'knows' deep down that people who claim to be ex-Christians really truly still believe because gosh, how could anyone NOT believe in Jebus?

 

As if Jebus was a given, just like time, space, death and taxes. That level of delusion is some scary shit!

[midniterider]

 

I thank everyone who has participated in this topic with me, but I think that this is going to have to be my last post. It seems like there is too much that I don't have in common with the people on here, and it's hard to even get on any common ground here.

 

 

Duh. What common ground did you expect to find?

[R. S. Martin]

 

For each one of us, it all comes down to a choice about Jesus. Do we really accept Him and what the Bible says about Him? I choose to cling to that belief while most of you on this site have chosen to let go of your belief about Jesus.

 

 

Speak for yourself, sir. For honest people, belief is not a choice. Honest people seek out the state of reality and accept what they find. You, upon your own confession, choose what you want to believe, or what you think sounds convincing. That is, obviously, not good enough for honest truth-loving people.

 

You argue as though the Bible itself were some sort of foundation upon which to base truth. Anyone who reads the Bible with the intent to learn its content is impressed by about Page 2 by its internal inconsistency. It only gets worse.

 

Obviously, then, a person who believes the message of Christianity has either not learned--or chosen not--to think deeply and critically, or chooses to believe despite the inconsistencies. Personal integrity will not allow me to live like that. I know I am by no means alone about this on these forums.

 

Thus, as stated, speak for yourself when you claim belief/unbelief is a choice because for most of us it is most definitely NOT.

[R. S. Martin]

 

I thank everyone who has participated in this topic with me, but I think that this is going to have to be my last post. It seems like there is too much that I don't have in common with the people on here, and it's hard to even get on any common ground here.

 

 

Duh. What common ground did you expect to find?

 

I think he was of the misguided notion that we deconverted because we were hurt by the church. I get that impression from the following quote taken from his Post 13:

 

I know that at least some of you have been directly affected by these teachings. I believe the teachings and ministries that I've outlined above have been responsible for much abuse within Christian churches. Even if you are not directly impacted,

 

He's not saying it in so many words. But he implies that having been affected by these teachings (that he finds loathsome), whether directly or indirectly, could be experienced as abuse. To me, that translates as "hurt by the church/Christianity/religion."

 

Like everyone else here, I'm just trying to understand why he ever posted here. After reading his Post 13, I think he believed we'd be happy to have a "listening ear" who "understood" the "abuses" of the teachings he also dislikes. That's the common ground he expected to find. That's the best answer I can come up with.

 

Obviously, he didn't do a lot of in-depth reading of testimonials on this site to find out why we really left, before posting his cure-all. Rather short-sighted, if you ask me, but what can you expect of a person who chooses what he wishes to believe and assumes everyone is a clone of himself.

[Antlerman]

 

The Koran says that Allah is the one and only god. How can you be so sure that he's not the true deity? The BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORY BOOK. It contains little, if any, historical fact. You're the one who came to an ex-xtian website preaching your pathetic beliefs. I find that HUGELY insulting. I'm pretty sure by your comments that you do not read anything besides the bible for your history and xtian blogs that tell you what to believe. You've been regurgitating whatever apologetics article you just read this entire post.

 

This is the reason that I won't be posting anymore.

Because you acknowledge you are closed-minded and wish to remain that way?

 

P.S. Regarding your original post about those who give Christianity a bad name, include yourself amongst them.

[Ouroboros]

P.S. Regarding your original post about those who give Christianity a bad name, include yourself amongst them.

One thing I thought about was that it's very bad advertizing by a Christian to criticize other Christians. It's like going in to a business partnership with someone who admits they embezzled another partnership. One Christian badmouthing other Christians is just as good as the other Christian doing the same thing. You know what I mean? It's like Pepsi accusing Coke for being a sub-par product because they're using corn sugar.

[RankStranger]

Hey- the gal was intelligent and polite. And she left when it became clear that people found her beliefs & arguments insulting. That's head & shoulders above most christians we get around here.

 

I don't see any reason to be so hard on her.

[Realist]

Hey- the gal was intelligent and polite. And she left when it became clear that people found her beliefs & arguments insulting. That's head & shoulders above most christians we get around here.

 

I don't see any reason to be so hard on her.

 

 

... I think she left because she realised she was about to spend half her life here debating and she was not up to it! That is why she stated such a feeble reason when she left!

[TenthDoctor]

The reason that I am no longer posting here is that there is absolutely no point for me to do so. It seems that no one is interested in discussing the original post -- instead this has turned into a debate about Christianity and everything surrounding it.

 

I tried my best to engage in a civil discussion with people here, and some of you were respectful. I didn't expect for people to be respectful at first, but I thought that after discussing it for awhile, that people wouldn't see the need to belittle me or to continue personal attacks. There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing with someone else's beliefs and having absolutely no respect for a person with a different opinion. I thank everyone who was respectful, but not everyone was. Engaging in conversation with people who have no respect for me as a person, and insult my beliefs is a total waste of my time and theirs.

 

Furthermore, several of you have claimed that the very fact that I'm posting here is insulting to them. Remember, I only posted my beliefs as answers to questions that people asked me on here. My answers were found to be insulting to people. If I cannot be honest and express what I believe to legitimate questions that people ask me, without coming across as insulting to everyone on here, how can any real discussion take place?

 

I'm insulted because of personal attacks that people throw and because of a total lack of respect for my beliefs, and most of the people here find the fact that I hold to certain beliefs to be insulting to them -- there is no basis for discussion.

 

Also, the longer I posted here, the more clear it became that the people participating in this topic have completely abandoned all their beliefs, and there is no basis for discussion at all. You see anything with a Christian label on it as being garbage. There is no difference in your eyes between Christian orthodoxy and heresy.

 

Furthermore, most of you on here clearly do not want me here....so why waste both of our time?

 

Jesus talked about discussions like this, and advises His followers not to waste their time. (My paraphrase of something that Jesus said.)

 

Therefore, I take my leave.

[florduh]

There is no difference in your eyes between Christian orthodoxy and heresy.

Jesus. It took long enough.

 

Nobody here has a Christian position to defend, so we see you calling HERESY on another Christian's doctrine and then they do the same regarding yours. As I said, two ends of the same turd, so an A-turdist has no dog in the fight. Get it?

[bornagainathiest]

The reason that I am no longer posting here is that there is absolutely no point for me to do so. It seems that no one is interested in discussing the original post -- instead this has turned into a debate about Christianity and everything surrounding it.

 

I tried my best to engage in a civil discussion with people here, and some of you were respectful. I didn't expect for people to be respectful at first, but I thought that after discussing it for awhile, that people wouldn't see the need to belittle me or to continue personal attacks. There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing with someone else's beliefs and having absolutely no respect for a person with a different opinion. I thank everyone who was respectful, but not everyone was. Engaging in conversation with people who have no respect for me as a person, and insult my beliefs is a total waste of my time and theirs.

 

Furthermore, several of you have claimed that the very fact that I'm posting here is insulting to them. Remember, I only posted my beliefs as answers to questions that people asked me on here. My answers were found to be insulting to people. If I cannot be honest and express what I believe to legitimate questions that people ask me, without coming across as insulting to everyone on here, how can any real discussion take place?

 

I'm insulted because of personal attacks that people throw and because of a total lack of respect for my beliefs, and most of the people here find the fact that I hold to certain beliefs to be insulting to them -- there is no basis for discussion.

 

Also, the longer I posted here, the more clear it became that the people participating in this topic have completely abandoned all their beliefs, and there is no basis for discussion at all. You see anything with a Christian label on it as being garbage. There is no difference in your eyes between Christian orthodoxy and heresy.

 

Furthermore, most of you on here clearly do not want me here....so why waste both of our time?

 

Jesus talked about discussions like this, and advises His followers not to waste their time. (My paraphrase of something that Jesus said.)

 

Therefore, I take my leave.

 

I'm sorry Tenth, but I can't help but feel there's something you're not telling us.

 

Correction!

 

Weren't telling us... since you've taken your leave.

 

The way you wrote and what you wrote indicate that you are an intelligent person.

So, what were you expecting to find in a forum entitled, Ex-Christian.Net?

 

A forum full of Christians?

A forum where the Christian message would be received openly and warmly, without criticism or questioning?

A forum where people who've been hurt, abused and traumatized by Christians and who are just going to let bygones be bygones and open themselves up to more hurt?

 

Nope, I reckon your opening post was just a clever smokescreen for your real reason to come here...whatever that was.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you realized so quickly that we're not interested in the the Good News. Would that other 'resident' Christian apologists could take the hint!

 

So, perhaps you'd do us all a favor, before you delete your membership?

 

Please send a Personal Message to the "Authentic" Christian member called Thumbelina, telling her that she's wasting her time here. Please explain to her that as a Christian, she should be out there, getting her hands dirty by washing the weeping sores of the homeless. Once she's sold all of her possessions and given the monies to the poor. And other shit like that. Ok?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Oh and do close the door on your way out.

 

Bye! (Waves.)

 

BAA.

[TenthDoctor]

I'm sorry Tenth, but I can't help but feel there's something you're not telling us.

 

Correction!

 

Weren't telling us... since you've taken your leave.

 

The way you wrote and what you wrote indicate that you are an intelligent person.

So, what were you expecting to find in a forum entitled, Ex-Christian.Net?

 

A forum full of Christians?

A forum where the Christian message would be received openly and warmly, without criticism or questioning?

A forum where people who've been hurt, abused and traumatized by Christians and who are just going to let bygones be bygones and open themselves up to more hurt?

 

Nope, I reckon your opening post was just a clever smokescreen for your real reason to come here...whatever that was.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you realized so quickly that we're not interested in the the Good News. Would that other 'resident' Christian apologists could take the hint!

 

So, perhaps you'd do us all a favor, before you delete your membership?

 

Please send a Personal Message to the "Authentic" Christian member called Thumbelina, telling her that she's wasting her time here. Please explain to her that as a Christian, she should be out there, getting her hands dirty by washing the weeping sores of the homeless. Once she's sold all of her possessions and given the monies to the poor. And other shit like that. Ok?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Oh and do close the door on your way out.

 

Bye! (Waves.)

 

BAA.

 

Honestly, I thought that people on here could discuss the doctrines and teachings that I outlined in the first post and compare them to what Christian orthodoxy is -- and that although you guys no longer believed in Jesus, that since you did at one time -- a discussion about this would be appropriate. I thought that we would be on common ground in regard to those teachings that I talked about in the original post.

 

I never meant this to turn into what it has. Also, people asked me what I thought of sin, salvation, etc. I answered their questions. I understand why some people might have thought that was preaching and insulting, but I tried to answer the questions without it coming off that way. Since people didn't believe there was a difference between orthodoxy and heresy, those terms needed to be defined. The discussion that I wanted just simply did not work in this setting.

 

No, I did not expect to find a forum full of Christians, a forum where the Christian message would have been warmly welcomed without criticism and questioning (again, there is a difference between respectful criticism/questioning and total disrespect (calling Jesus jeebus and other terms, calling the Bible fucktard, calling my faith retarded, calling me retarded, etc. all constitutes total disrespect for me and my beliefs).

 

You were one of the respectful ones, and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

 

In your last question to me, it seems like you were saying that I was hurting/abusing you guys by posting here. That wasn't my intention at all. I guess I just don't understand all of the dynamics going on here. It seems like that statement was saying that the very fact that a Christian posts their beliefs is hurtful and abusive to the members on this site. Again, if that is how my posts are viewed by the people on this site, no discussion can take place because my posts will be taking on a completely different message than my intention.

 

I'll finish this up in a bit. I'm going to eat lunch now.

[Antlerman]

Alright, I would in fact like to discuss your opening topic regarding heresy and giving Christianity a bad name. I may have been rash in saying you have a closed-mind in my only post in this thread last night. If you would like a serious, respectful discussion I can put your thread in the Coliseum forum where ad hominem attacks are moderated. I'm more than happy to have a reasonable and respectful discussion with those of all religious faiths.

 

As for how I currently view those on the fringes of Christianity whom you cited, like any group, including atheists, you will have extremism. The extremes do not reflect the whole and we should be careful not to cite the nut-jobs as reflective of the whole. That said they do have their place. It shows how far an unbalanced view can take someone. That said however, your citation of 'orthodoxy' as the 'correct' belief is hardly acceptable. That is the discussion point I would wish to have with you. "What is Orthodoxy?" Interested?

[TenthDoctor]

Alright, I would in fact like to discuss your opening topic regarding heresy and giving Christianity a bad name. I may have been rash in saying you have a closed-mind in my only post in this thread last night. If you would like a serious, respectful discussion I can put your thread in the Coliseum forum where ad hominem attacks are moderated. I'm more than happy to have a reasonable and respectful discussion with those of all religious faiths.

 

As for how I currently view those on the fringes of Christianity whom you cited, like any group, including atheists, you will have extremism. The extremes do not reflect the whole and we should be careful not to cite the nut-jobs as reflective of the whole. That said they do have their place. It shows how far an unbalanced view can take someone. That said however, your citation of 'orthodoxy' as the 'correct' belief is hardly acceptable. That is the discussion point I would wish to have with you. "What is Orthodoxy?" Interested?

 

Yes, I'm willing to try a discussion in the Coliseum on any topic that was brought up in this thread.

 

Thank you.

[TenthDoctor]

Alright, I would in fact like to discuss your opening topic regarding heresy and giving Christianity a bad name. I may have been rash in saying you have a closed-mind in my only post in this thread last night. If you would like a serious, respectful discussion I can put your thread in the Coliseum forum where ad hominem attacks are moderated. I'm more than happy to have a reasonable and respectful discussion with those of all religious faiths.

 

As for how I currently view those on the fringes of Christianity whom you cited, like any group, including atheists, you will have extremism. The extremes do not reflect the whole and we should be careful not to cite the nut-jobs as reflective of the whole. That said they do have their place. It shows how far an unbalanced view can take someone. That said however, your citation of 'orthodoxy' as the 'correct' belief is hardly acceptable. That is the discussion point I would wish to have with you. "What is Orthodoxy?" Interested?

 

Just let me know when you've made that topic, so that I know to look for it.