First Question

[Bhim]

Thank you.  Perhaps it's somewhat ironic that the scientist doesn't care about the scientific and historical inaccuracies in the claims of Christianity.  Christians probably have an easier time making their case when discussions can avoid these issues and be relegated to emotional appeals and "what about the sin in your life" sort of topics.  Most people here take issue with Christianity because it makes factual claims that aren't true.  Here I am willing to table those issues, and I get absolutely nothing in terms of dialog.

 

It's very perplexing.  Alas, I know why Christians want to avoid these topics.  The prospect that someone's life and family could be ruined by Jesus is something that evangelicals don't want to face, because it points to the impotence of the blood of Jesus to change lives.  That's precisely the point I hope to impress upon Ironhorse and other Christians.

[Bhim]

Bump.  Several of us still have not received responses to our questions, as we were promised.  I have heard nothing from you explaining why I should convert to Christianity and suffer a "cost of discipleship" that your average evangelical must not pay.

 

Ironhorse, it's not that I don't have patience or understanding, but you've been spending time on this forum and have nonetheless ignored my comments.  We're all busy, and most of us have 9-5 jobs, but this level of disregard is starting to get a bit frustrating.  I was responding to peoples' posts here last November, when I was simultaneously preparing to defend my PhD dissertation and get married.  I hope that whatever is keeping you away from your own invitation to dialog is more time consuming than that.

[♦ ficino ♦]

#28 (Ravenstar)? #39 (mine) Still waiting.

[Fweethawt]

Not gonna happen, peeps. Sorry.

 

Move along. Nothing to be seen here.

 

Looks like he opened a can of whoopass and wasn't expecting what was inside.

 

Somebody must've tore the label off...

[MerryG]

I'm still waiting, too, ironhorse: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60657-a-question-for-ironhorse/#entry921999

 

And while I'm not trying to push ahead of all the others who are awaiting answers to their questions, I'll point out again that my query goes to a basic issue about your mission.

 

Looking forward to hearing your answer soon.

[skepticalme]

Doubter,

 

I agree there are ancient documents concerning other gods.

 

I believe the God as reveal in the Bible.

Jesus is the visible image.

 

There are ancient documents other than the Bible that mention Jesus.

I'm new here and have been fumbling around with the copy/paste thing.(not working for me)

Also I'm not sure of the forum guidelines on posting outside links.

 

Google>>>>Historical Evidence Jesus Existed>>>A post by an atheist.

The Thinking Atheist Forums

There are also documents stating Hercules smashed the Straites of Gibraultar creating the Mediterainian Sea.  That is the same amount of evidense that Thor and Spiderman teamed up to save New York.

[Voice]

I've re-thought my previous statement about your not having to respond to my questions, I would like for you to answer one of them, just one.  Contemplate it for yourself, but answer it too:

 

What is your impression of a religion, any religion, that holds threat of death over its subjects?

[ironhorse]

My answer to Bhim #119:

 

-My father was a Southern Baptists pastor. He considered himself

a fundamentalist on matters for faith, but broke ranks on the

non-biblical teachings of many fundamentalists. For example: music,

Bible translations, dress codes, tobacco use, alcoholic beverages, other

denominations, entertainment, other religions, race relations, politics, freedom

of speech and religion. Two examples: My father was invited and preached in several

black churches in the 1950s. He also agreed with the Supreme Court on prayer in the early

1960s. He did not want a school or state sponsored prayer being read or required

in public schools.

 

-I was twelve when I accepted Christ. It was during a revival by a visiting pastor.

 

-My parents were happy. All they said that night on the way home were they were

glad.  During their lives here,  when asked or talking about our family, it was always

their only comment on my decision.

 

-No strife in my family over my decision.

 

Note: Thanks for posting about your family. Also can you tell me

why they are called "rice Christians" in India?

 

I hope those were all your questions. Let me know if not, but if you can

post them in the Questions for Ironhorse thread.

[MerryG]

Ironhorse -- Bhim has asked his question repeatedly. What he posted at #119 was a clarification on what he'd asked earlier. Here's an example of his original and repeated question:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60629-first-question/page-5#entry921762

 

You took his question to be "all about ironhorse." It was not. Not even remotely.

[MerryG]

BTW, ironhorse, I'm still waiting for the answer to my question, which as I've said several times now, goes right to the heart of your motives and mission here. I know I'm in a long line of people waiting, so I'll be patient for a couple of days longer if need be.

 

Here's the question, which I asked in the Question for Ironhorse thread:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60657-a-question-for-ironhorse/#entry921999

[Voice]

I'll wait patiently.

 

Are you sure you haven't bitten off more than you can chew, Ironhorse? These are good questions and probably not quite what you were expecting.

[Bhim]

Ironhorse. Thank you for your response to my post. I don't believe you addressed my points, but I appreciate that you at least addressed them. This is, after all, more than most other Christians on this board do. And I think there's a lot of room here for additional discussion.

 

My answer to Bhim #119:

-My father was a Southern Baptists pastor. He considered himself
a fundamentalist on matters for faith, but broke ranks on the
non-biblical teachings of many fundamentalists. For example: music,
Bible translations, dress codes, tobacco use, alcoholic beverages, other
denominations, entertainment, other religions, race relations, politics, freedom
of speech and religion. Two examples: My father was invited and preached in several
black churches in the 1950s. He also agreed with the Supreme Court on prayer in the early
1960s. He did not want a school or state sponsored prayer being read or required
in public schools.

That's good to hear, but actually it's not all that revolutionary. Long before the Civil Rights movement started, preachers such as George Whitfield evangelized black slaves. Actually many of the American Calvinists were "ahead of their time," in that they drank beer, listened to secular music, and so forth. Heck, we can go back to Martin Luther as an example. You've probably sung A Mighty Fortress is our God. Did you know that the music for this hymn came from a drinking song? Just sing it with a beer mug in your hand if you don't believe me.

Today, most evangelicals that I know dress like everyone else, tolerate tobacco use, drink, and believe in freedom of speech. Though almost all of them vote Republican, I don't think any of them like to hear politics from the pulpit either. And I've never met a single evangelical in person who was racist (at least not towards me). The caricature of evangelicals and fundamentalists that you see on websites like Landover Baptist do not represent evangelicals at all, at least not the circle of Reformed evangelicals that I'm familiar with. I'm saying this so that you know that when I say I can't be part of the evangelical community, it is not because I have any misconceptions about them.

 

-I was twelve when I accepted Christ. It was during a revival by a visiting pastor.

-My parents were happy. All they said that night on the way home were they were
glad. During their lives here, when asked or talking about our family, it was always
their only comment on my decision.

-No strife in my family over my decision.

I'm glad that your decision to become a Christian didn't cause any familial strife. As someone who supports family values (which I think are not compatible with evangelical Christianity), I' always happy to hear this. However, please keep in mind that your decision to be a Christian almost certainly wouldn't cause a family rift, because your family is Christian. Your father is a Baptist minister, and so your becoming a Christian is, in effect, an act of retaining the family faith.


This isn't how it would ever work in my family. My family has been Hindu since time immemorial. So you can see that when I became a Christian, they certainly weren't happy about it. They tolerated it, but it was not good for family solidarity. Alas, my family could have dealt with me being a Christian, but Jesus could not tolerate me serving two masters. He demands a choice, after all. When your father is a Baptist minister, there's no choice at all, because your earthly and heavenly fathers are in agreement about what's good for you. But Jesus certainly wouldn't allow me to do pujas with the family, eat prasadam ("food sacrificed to idols," as Paul might say), or participate in any Hindu holiday functions. More importantly, Jesus had sentenced my family to eternal conscious torment in hell. Jesus forced me to choose between him and family. Obviously I chose them over him. Forgive me if I'm making incorrect assumptions here, but I presume you've never been faced with such a choice. Still, I don't think you're beyond understanding my dilemma.

This is why I say that Christianity is a destroyer of families. In this particular case, I made the decision to come back. But missionaries convert countless non-Christians around the world and even here in the United States, and destroy close-knit families. As per your beliefs, I can understand if you claim that you are saving souls from eternal torment. All I ask is that you agree with me that Christianity does not place a particularly high premium on family values, when viewed from the perspective of non-Christian families.

I'd appreciate extensive comments on this. However I'll also ask two specific questions.

1.) Do you understand that evangelicals who implore us non-Christians to give up our culture and heritage to go follow Christ are placing a yoke around our necks that they themselves have never had to bear? (This isn't a yes or no question)

2.) Given what I've said, do you still commend the gospel of Jesus to me? If so, what sorts of recommendations would you have for dealing with the issues I've outlined above? Let me say from the outset that I have no real intention of becoming a Christian. But I don't want you to think this is a disingenuous question, because I am nonetheless interested in what you have to say.
 

Note: Thanks for posting about your family. Also can you tell me
why they are called "rice Christians" in India?

I hope those were all your questions. Let me know if not, but if you can
post them in the Questions for Ironhorse thread.

"Rice Christians" is a term for poor people in India who convert to Christianity due to material enticement. It's a common practice for Western missionaries to offer poor Hindus food and housing if they convert and visit a church regularly. These people are called Rice Christians because they've given up their culture for a proverbial bag of rice.

I will also paste this reply in the Questions for Ironhorse thread. Feel free to reply in either one.

[thereisnoperfect]

Ironhorse, I have a question for you.

 

You said in one of these threads that you had come here to "share the gospel." As I'm sure you and everybody around here knows, "gospel" means "good news."

 

And I could sure use some good news.

 

So my question is this: what is the good news you want to share?

 

However, please note: 

1) if this message has only or primarily to do with what happens after I die, and especially if that message is that bad things happen to a lot of people after they die, that's not "good" news to me. What happens after I die is not anywhere on my top 20 list of concerns right now. "Good news" would be something that makes the life I am currently experiencing better, not a promise about what some other life that may or may not really happen will be like.

 

2) Speaking for myself, I've been a conservative Lutheran who knew I had to believe certain strict doctrines to be "saved," and an evangelical who trusted in grace through Jesus, and a red letter / emergent Christian who tried to follow the path of Jesus and do what he said to do, and a progressive Christian with Rob-Bell-type mostly-universalist hopes for some kind of world to come that will be better for everybody. So if your gospel is any variation of any of those things, it is not "news" to me or probably anybody else here.

 

So do you have good news for me, and what is it?

[ironhorse]

thereisnoperfect,

 

The Good News

 

John 3:16

 

"Love God and do as you please." ~Augustine

[falemon]

thereisnoperfect,

 

The Good News

 

John 3:16

 

"Love God and do as you please." ~Augustine

So what you is sayin' is that you've come here to tell us we may do as we please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great!

[ExCBooster]

So, the "good news" boils down to a rather gristly act of human sacrifice (now commemorated in symbolic cannibalism) - lovely. Lots of people believe(d) in human sacrifice. How is this any different than the Aztecs? Why not believe in Quetzalcoatl, then?

[thereisnoperfect]

thereisnoperfect,

 

The Good News

 

John 3:16

 

"Love God and do as you please." ~Augustine

So no, you don't have any news for me. That verse is old news to even most people with only a passing familiarity with Christianity.

 

And by the end of my time calling myself a Christian, I'd even realized that it wasn't a good "gospel in a nutshell," since the gospel Jesus actually taught wasn't anything about his own death, but clearly was "the kingdom of God is at hand."

 

I don't have a need to be saved from anything, and certainly not to be saved by God's love from the wrath of God.

[Bhim]

thereisnoperfect,

 

The Good News

 

John 3:16

 

"Love God and do as you please." ~Augustine

The problem isn't John 3:16. It's what comes twenty verses later.

 

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. --John 3:36

 

I would submit that the gospel of Jesus is no good news at all, but an evil, ungodly, and ultimately impotent threat of eternal conscious torment by a false messiah who masquerades as the God of Israel. The Jews would have saved the world much suffering if they stoned Jesus to death the day the word "hell" first passed his lips.

[sdelsolray]

thereisnoperfect,

 

The Good News

 

John 3:16

 

"Love God and do as you please." ~Augustine

Quite shallow, hollow, myopic and fanciful.

 

Got anything else?

[Ravenstar]

Augustine obviously had some pagan leanings… "Do as thou wilt", is a pagan idea, not a christian one.

 

I've read some of his stuff.. smart guy, completely bonkers and rather nasty though.

[falemon]

Ezekiel 18:21-23

New King James Version (NKJV)

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

 

So explain to me again, why Jesus' sacrifice saves us?

[Bhim]

Ezekiel 18:21-23

New King James Version (NKJV)

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

 

So explain to me again, why Jesus' sacrifice saves us?

The Christian answer of course is that no person but Jesus actually fulfills this criterion, and thus no one can actually be saved by their righteous deeds. They probably also excuse the part about turning from unrighteousness by saying that Jesus took on all of our unrighteous deeds, casting them off on the cross.

 

Christians eviscerate the Hebrew Bible of any real meaning by applying every verse solely to Jesus.

[ironhorse]

Should a person who does something wrong be punished?

 

For example: If a person murders another person, should he/she be punished?

 

Should a person convicted be judged and punished rightly?

What should the punishment for murder be?

 

You do not have to answer. You can if you wish but I said the questions first

to explain why Jesus was crucified.

 

God character demands that all wrong doing must be judged. Sin, missing

the mark, must be punished.

 

When John the Baptist first saw Jesus he said, "Behold the lamb slain from the

foundation of the world."

 

Jesus was not just a man but also God. He was and is the only person who

can offer himself as a substitute for all sins.

 

He fully understood what he would experience on the cross and pleaded

with the Father to take it away if possible.

 

He willingly placed himself on the cross.

What he experience was not just six hours of excruciating pain,

but a eternity of suffering and pain.

 

Although he died on the cross and rose from the dead, in a mysterious

way I doubt any person can understand, Jesus is still outside of time

and space...somewhere in eternity.... still suffering and still in excruciating pain.

 

For the world

[MerryG]

Should a person who does something wrong be punished?

 

Your turn, ironhorse:

 

Should a person who does something wrong, however major, however minor, however well-intended, however ill-intended -- be tortured forever?

 

Should a person who does something wrong be punished after death when there is no chance that the punishment will produce any redemptive or rehabilitative result?

 

Would you consider a person (or being) who would inflict either of the above horrors to be morally superior to the rest of us?

[Fernweh]

Should a person who does something wrong be punished?

 

For example: If a person murders another person, should he/she be punished?

 

Should a person convicted be judged and punished rightly?

What should the punishment for murder be?

 

You do not have to answer. You can if you wish but I said the questions first

to explain why Jesus was crucified.

 

God character demands that all wrong doing must be judged. Sin, missing

the mark, must be punished.

 

When John the Baptist first saw Jesus he said, "Behold the lamb slain from the

foundation of the world."

 

Jesus was not just a man but also God. He was and is the only person who

can offer himself as a substitute for all sins.

 

He fully understood what he would experience on the cross and pleaded

with the Father to take it away if possible.

 

He willingly placed himself on the cross.

What he experience was not just six hours of excruciating pain,

but a eternity of suffering and pain.

 

Although he died on the cross and rose from the dead, in a mysterious

way I doubt any person can understand, Jesus is still outside of time

and space...somewhere in eternity.... still suffering and still in excruciating pain.

 

For the world

 

Space-time is a discovery of the last century. The cosmology of the bible says the Earth is flat, rests on four pillars, and is covered by a dome with Heaven above the dome and Hell beneath the Earth. I've heard this argument that God exists outside of Space-time for decades, I even believed it myself for many years, and it's bunk. Nobody would have said that even 120 years ago because space-time was not a concept known to human beings.