A Question For Ironhorse

[disillusioned]

I’m also relatively new around here, and it seems a little strange to me that there are Christians who frequent these forums. I’m honestly not sure why you are here. It doesn’t bother me that you are; I’m just confused as to your motives. It seems to me that there are two possibilities. Either you are experiencing more doubt than you are willing to admit, or you genuinely think you can convince some of us that Christianity is true.

 

In the interest of not insulting you, I’ll assume the latter. Your faith is unshakeable. You’re here because you think that some of us can be saved. Fine. Let’s cut to the chase, then, shall we?

 

Convince me that Christianity is true.

 

To do this, you will need to demonstrate that all of humankind is tainted, because 6000 years ago a man (who science dictates could never have existed) ate a piece of fruit, and the eating of this fruit was evil. Incidentally, it was only eating this fruit that gave the man the ability to distinguish between good and evil, so evidently he could not have been aware that the action of eating the fruit itself was evil. Nevertheless, because he ate this fruit everyone is destined to suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire. But one needn’t worry, because there is good news! It turns out that we can all escape this unimaginably horrendous future if we will only believe that 2000 years ago another man, who was also God, impregnated his own mother so that she could give birth to him. We must also believe that he then proceeded to offer himself to himself as a human sacrifice, after which he rose from the dead. But that is not all! He is still alive today, and he requires his followers to give him 10% of their income, and to engage in a ritualistic eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood whenever they gather together. He is privy to everyone’s thoughts, he watches while we sleep, and he wishes his followers, both male and female, to consider themselves his “bride”. (Interestingly enough, despite the injunction that his male followers must think of themselves in this way, he remains ardently opposed to homosexuality.) And yet there is more. He is coming back (apparently soon, although no one knows precisely when) to destroy this world and to pass judgement on everyone who has ever lived. His true followers are to spend their entire lives preparing for this triumphant return, and are expected to do whatever they can to hasten his coming.

 

It seems a little much to accept purely based on faith, does it not? So give me something more. If this is not what you believe, then please, share your perspective. But keep in mind that it wasn’t all that long ago that I genuinely, truly believed every word that I wrote above. It seems completely absurd to me now, but indoctrination can convince one of truly strange things. Of course, I no longer believe any of this. I consider it nonsense. But I have been wrong before. If any of it actually is true, I would certainly like to know about it. So please, convince me. Bring your arguments and your evidence. But in the meantime, you will forgive me if I retain my doubts.

 

On the other hand, maybe you are not interested in convincing me. But in that case, I must reiterate my initial question—why are you here?

[Geezer]

I believe silence is an answer. Good post disillusioned.

 

It appears we have come to similar conclusions as that relates to engaging Christians. I will not debate the meaning of scripture with a Christian either, until they can first convince me their sacred text is literally true and historically accurate. That stipulation brings the conversation to a screeching halt.

[Deva]

Not sure why they come here either.  Perhaps its easier than door-to-door witnessing? Anyway, you will seldom see a direct answer to a question and when you get one, its an appeal to the Holy Babble, which YOU WOULD THINK they would see that we all reject.

 

Otherwise, its trolling.

[ironhorse]

disillusioned,

 

It should not be strange that Christian frequent here. Christians are invited to post in

the Lion's Den.

 

My answer is not only my answer to you and all who might read this,

but this has been my attitude a long time before I ever came here.

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

 

I can't convince you of anything. I don't know about you but for me to be convinced

of something the convincing comes to me in more than one direction. My final decision

is what my heart and mind show me.

 

My motive in sharing Christianity is not to get people saved. That's not my business.

Jesus told his followers to spread the Gospel. I believe that is what I do.

[francesco]

Missconception on christian faith?

Sure, there are only at least 41,000 christian denominations (either big or small) and each of them can be very similar or can be very different in terms of dogmas, doctrines, cultures, hierarchies, models, services, rules, views, etc

Which one is the right one from those 41,0000?

One is misconception for another

 

And no need to spread the gospel here

Most of the members here already heard about the gospel

Some of them even have more holistic understanding than some christians

 

Sunday school for kindergarden is a more appropriate place for you to apply your motive than ex-C

[buffettphan]

It should not be strange that Christian frequent here. Christians are invited to post in

the Lion's Den.

 

<remainder of True Christian's^tm rhetoric snipped>

 

 

The Lion's Den

Lion's Den Rules Attention "True Christians™" and former Christians. 

 

This is the section of the board where Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated. Aggressive evangelism is permitted in this section, but aggressive evangelists should be ready to be met by equally aggressive resistance. 

 

 

 

 

I guess it takes some major brainwashing to believe that

 

 "Christian opinions, arguments, sermons and so on will be more-or-less tolerated"

=

"invited to post"

 

 

 

<smh>

 

 

[midniterider]

disillusioned,

 

It should not be strange that Christian frequent here. Christians are invited to post in

the Lion's Den.

 

My answer is not only my answer to you and all who might read this,

but this has been my attitude a long time before I ever came here.

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

 

I can't convince you of anything. I don't know about you but for me to be convinced

of something the convincing comes to me in more than one direction. My final decision

is what my heart and mind show me.

 

My motive in sharing Christianity is not to get people saved. That's not my business.

Jesus told his followers to spread the Gospel. I believe that is what I do.

 

But we've already been Christians. We are aware of  scripture and Jesus because we've gone to church. We've prayed. We've believed in Jesus. We've done bible studies. We've been to Promise Keepers!

 

Why would someone share Christianity with people who already are acutely aware and have intimately lived exactly the kind of life you are talking about? We have lived and loved Jesus. Then we got tired of it. We discovered Christianity was toxic emotional manipulation and we also discovered the bible is false, the religion is false, Jesus is fiction.

 

If you feel 'Jesus' told you to spread the gospel then spread the gospel to someone who has not heard the gospel. You are not spreading the gospel by telling people here who have already heard it, know it, lived it. What you are doing is preaching to the choir.

[TrueFreedom]

Let me help you out, ironhorse.  Have you read these? http://www.ex-christian.net/forum/5-testimonies-of-former-christians/

Most of us were just as convinced of the truth of the gospel as you are.  We studied to show ourselves approved.  We tested the spirits. We wore the holy armor.  We recognized people by their fruit.  We loved one another.  We took care of widows and orphans.  We visited our spiritual brothers and sisters in prison.  We followed the great commission.  Ultimately, we found that we were mistaken.  We are still good people, but we have learned that our worldview was flawed.

[florduh]

disillusioned,

 

It should not be strange that Christian frequent here. Christians are invited to post in

the Lion's Den.

 

My answer is not only my answer to you and all who might read this,

but this has been my attitude a long time before I ever came here.

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

 

I can't convince you of anything. I don't know about you but for me to be convinced

of something the convincing comes to me in more than one direction. My final decision

is what my heart and mind show me.

 

My motive in sharing Christianity is not to get people saved. That's not my business.

Jesus told his followers to spread the Gospel. I believe that is what I do.

 

There, that didn't take long. We have here yet another True Christian who thinks we left because we weren't exposed to his particular and uniquely correct take on the religion (or perhaps "relationship.")

 

Well, get in line, buddy. There are at least a dozen other True Christians in front of you at this time who are all ready to explain how the tens of thousands of Christians we've dealt in the past with didn't get it quite right.

 

As I suggested to you earlier, you seriously need to step up your game here.

[slave2six]

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing the real thing. 

 

This is precisely why I left Christianity. I took the time to distill it down to its bare essentials.

 

Would you agree that the center of the Christian faith is the Cross and resurrection?

 

If so, can the story of the Cross survive if you erase the "Fall of Man" account?

• If you think it can, then explain "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

So, if the Fall of Man is essential, you have to ask whether that account is true. 

1. It cannot be literally true. That is a physical, biological impossibility.

    

2. If it is allegory, what need is there for a literal Cross? 

When you distill it down to its essence, it makes no sense.

[Geezer]

Ironhorse said, "My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith."

 

 

 

 

 

o·pin·ion

əˈpinyən/  

noun

noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

    

    

    

    

    

I think you are aware by now Ironhorse the members of this site are not particularly interested in opinions. They are interested in facts that are based on evidence. Not many folks here would be interested in anyone's opinion of the Christian faith. Most of the folks here were long time Christians, so they are intimately familiar with all the problems you referenced that are common in the numerous existing versions of Christianity. Honestly, you have added nothing new to the conversation thus far.

 

 

If you are really interested, I would suggest you start asking why we left rather than telling us why our perceptions of the Christian faith are wrong. I doubt that will happen because, as you have admitted, you are here simply to express your opinions.......even though no one asked for your opinion.

[ironhorse]

slave2six,

 

Your  questions:

 

Yes I believe the crucifixion and are the essentials.

 

The 'fall of man" account is not essential to the cross.

 

One can do away with the account of the fall.

Whether you dismiss it as impossible or allegory you still have

sin in the world.

[TrueFreedom]

....

Whether you dismiss it as impossible or allegory you still have

sin in the world.

 

By sin I assume that are referring to missing the mark placed by a perfect heavenly father.  Do you believe in hell?  Would a loving father punish a child with eternal torture for making a childish mistake?  When you harm another person, do you believe that you have sinned against that person or against this sky-daddy?  Who do you need to make it up to?

[MerryG]

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

I'm trying to put together things you've written in several threads, and while there are many things I don't understand, I'm really getting stumped on this one.

 

You've said repeatedly that all the people who've done horrible things in the name of christianity weren't really christians.

 

You're basing your judgment of them entirely on Jesus' supposed words about knowing people by their fruits.

 

So even if a person was baptized, believed in the divinity of Jesus, had profound spiritual experiences, read the bible diligently, and tried to follow the bible's laws as they understood them, etc. -- then that person wasn't a christian in your eyes as long as their "fruits" were rotten.

 

And that is the only way apparently to tell a true christian from a false one.

 

BUT ... here's where the problem comes in. The definition of christian you appear to be following and promoting relies entirely on subjective judgement. Your judgement. Your interpretation of what Jesus' judgment might be -- whatever. I'm not sure how you're arriving at you conclusions, except that they involve your subjective judgment.

 

But Jesus is also supposed to have said, "Judge not, that ye be judged." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-3&version=KJV) And he followed that up with some equally stern remarks warning of the consequences. And about beams and motes and all.

 

Yet you're judging that literally millions of people who believe, or in sometime in history believed, themselves to be christian actually weren't. And if they weren't, then you also believe that they weren't saved by Jesus. (So far I haven't heard your view of hell, but I presume you believe that God will make some sort of condemnation of all these millions, maybe billions.)

 

So you're judging all these people to be worthy of God's wrath. And you're doing so using no objective standard at all -- just your opinion of their "fruits." You're judging them. And not only that, you've taken it as you mission to get others to judge them, too.

 

How can you judge millions of people so sweepingly and still be following Jesus' will when he so forcefully said not to judge others?

[mymistake]

slave2six,

 

Your  questions:

 

Yes I believe the crucifixion and are the essentials.

 

The 'fall of man" account is not essential to the cross.

 

One can do away with the account of the fall.

Whether you dismiss it as impossible or allegory you still have

sin in the world.

 

This is not the case.  You must prove a god exists and is offended by something.  You cannot demonstrate any god exists let alone that any god has an opinion about us let alone that this opinion is offended over our behavior.

 

Until you do all those things you do not have sin in the world.

[slave2six]

slave2six,

 

Your  questions:

 

Yes I believe the crucifixion and are the essentials.

 

The 'fall of man" account is not essential to the cross.

 

One can do away with the account of the fall. Whether you dismiss it as impossible or allegory you still have sin in the world.

 

I think you are mistaken. What you have is people behaving like people. Some things that people do are considered by other people to be morally "bad" but that is not the same thing as "sin." 

 

"Sin", in the Christian context, is like cancer. It is an entity unto itself. It is a thing that can allegedly be eradicated.

 

But that is not the reality of the situation.

 

Morality is not exclusive to humans. Even a dog can be shamed. But if you look at the other four great apes (humans being the fifth), you will find behaviours that are similar if not identical to humans. This video on morality in animals is illuminating. It is but one of many books and videos that demonstrate that what you call "sin" is in fact simply nature. 

 

More to the point, your Christian doctrine says that "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." But you and I both know that is false. There is not one human being who has ever been made into a new, sinless creature. It is entirely up to you, up to your willpower, to behave well or not. God did not turn a human into a superhuman when they chose to follow Christ. If he had, we would have a world full of sinless people walking about. 

 

Your moral behaviour is your choice. It is also my choice. I don't need a "holy spirit" in order to make good moral choices. Neither do you. There is no such thing. If there was, then that "holy spirit" has proven to be worthless, because Christians still behave badly.

 

One could argue that there is merit in the Christian faith because it causes you to always be aware of the choices you are making. I would argue that people do that by default. No god is needed in order for me to make good choices. It's in my biology and yours. 

 

There is no "sin in the world." There are only people, other animals, plants and minerals. 

[francesco]

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

I'm trying to put together things you've written in several threads, and while there are many things I don't understand, I'm really getting stumped on this one.

 

You've said repeatedly that all the people who've done horrible things in the name of christianity weren't really christians.

 

You're basing your judgment of them entirely on Jesus' supposed words about knowing people by their fruits.

 

So even if a person was baptized, believed in the divinity of Jesus, had profound spiritual experiences, read the bible diligently, and tried to follow the bible's laws as they understood them, etc. -- then that person wasn't a christian in your eyes as long as their "fruits" were rotten.

 

And that is the only way apparently to tell a true christian from a false one.

 

BUT ... here's where the problem comes in. The definition of christian you appear to be following and promoting relies entirely on subjective judgement. Your judgement. Your interpretation of what Jesus' judgment might be -- whatever. I'm not sure how you're arriving at you conclusions, except that they involve your subjective judgment.

 

But Jesus is also supposed to have said, "Judge not, that ye be judged." (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A1-3&version=KJV) And he followed that up with some equally stern remarks warning of the consequences. And about beams and motes and all.

 

Yet you're judging that literally millions of people who believe, or in sometime in history believed, themselves to be christian actually weren't. And if they weren't, then you also believe that they weren't saved by Jesus. (So far I haven't heard your view of hell, but I presume you believe that God will make some sort of condemnation of all these millions, maybe billions.)

 

So you're judging all these people to be worthy of God's wrath. And you're doing so using no objective standard at all -- just your opinion of their "fruits." You're judging them. And not only that, you've taken it as you mission to get others to judge them, too.

 

How can you judge millions of people so sweepingly and still be following Jesus' will when he so forcefully said not to judge others?

 

a great post

and I believe the following image sum up your post nicely 

[mymistake]

 

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. 

 

 

Are you going to toss out the misconceptions you have about Christianity?  They keep you from seeing the truth about Christianity.

[ironhorse]

mymistake,

 

I must demonstrate God exists and until I do, I don't have sin in the world?

 

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

[MerryG]

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

 

For it specifically to be sin, it has to be something that specifically offends your god.

 

It may be (and IMHO is) monstrous, evil, outrageous, beastly (with apologies to actual beasts), horrific, contemptible, vicious, sadistic, uncaring, tragic, and many other things. But sin is a very specific religious concept: disobedience to the will of god.

 

You have to prove (or at least demonstrate a good probability for the existence of) god before you can argue that an act is sinful.

[florduh]

 

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

 

For it specifically to be sin, it has to be something that specifically offends your god.

 

It may be (and IMHO is) monstrous, evil, outrageous, beastly (with apologies to actual beasts), horrific, contemptible, vicious, sadistic, uncaring, tragic, and many other things. But sin is a very specific religious concept: disobedience to the will of god.

 

You have to prove (or at least demonstrate a good probability for the existence of) god before you can argue that an act is sinful.

 

Exactly.

 

Defining what you see as wrong, immoral, evil, etc. as an individual in this particular place and this particular time as "sin" is reaching far beyond your capability. Most sane and normal people of today see the atrocities committed by your god in the Old Testament as the ultimate in capricious cruelty and immorality as we currently define those terms. To the Bronze Age tribes who invented this god, such vicious brutality and genocide were common events in their societies and therefore not a stretch when assigning those human "morals" to their deities.

 

So first demonstrate that there is a god who defines what a sin is and then build a case for specific sins you are aware of. Otherwise, what you call sin is just shit you personally don't like.

[sdelsolray]

 

disillusioned,

 

It should not be strange that Christian frequent here. Christians are invited to post in

the Lion's Den.

 

My answer is not only my answer to you and all who might read this,

but this has been my attitude a long time before I ever came here.

 

My motive is to express my opinions on the Christian faith. A important part of my

motive is to try to tear down the tons of misconceptions some have of the Christian faith.

 

Not misconceptions they have created but the ones put up that hinder many from seeing

the real thing. Examples:  horrendous acts committed by non Christians and Christians,

legalistic laws and traditions created by some churches, false teachers, mental and sexual

abuse within some churches, Christians who fail to "test everything' and blindly believe false and

destructive teaching (which in terms perpetuates the misconceptions), and most of what you see

a "Christian Television." There are more.

 

 

I can't convince you of anything. I don't know about you but for me to be convinced

of something the convincing comes to me in more than one direction. My final decision

is what my heart and mind show me.

 

My motive in sharing Christianity is not to get people saved. That's not my business.

Jesus told his followers to spread the Gospel. I believe that is what I do.

 

There, that didn't take long. We have here yet another True Christian who thinks we left because we weren't exposed to his particular and uniquely correct take on the religion (or perhaps "relationship.")

 

Well, get in line, buddy. There are at least a dozen other True Christians in front of you at this time who are all ready to explain how the tens of thousands of Christians we've dealt in the past with didn't get it quite right.

 

As I suggested to you earlier, you seriously need to step up your game here.

 

That's True Christian™.  After all, they claim ownership of The Truth© and a patent on morals.

[mymistake]

mymistake,

 

I must demonstrate God exists and until I do, I don't have sin in the world?

 

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

 

Where is the God?  You have provided none.  Without a God it cannot be sin.

[mymistake]

 

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

 

For it specifically to be sin, it has to be something that specifically offends your god.

 

It may be (and IMHO is) monstrous, evil, outrageous, beastly (with apologies to actual beasts), horrific, contemptible, vicious, sadistic, uncaring, tragic, and many other things. But sin is a very specific religious concept: disobedience to the will of god.

 

You have to prove (or at least demonstrate a good probability for the existence of) god before you can argue that an act is sinful.

 

 

 

Romans 13:1-4

 

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

² Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

⁴ For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

Stalin was the right hand of God.  All dictators are appointed by God to do God's work.  If Stalin is a terror to 50 million people it was because they were evil.

[slave2six]

 

To name one: The murder of 50 million Russians by Stalin was not a sin? Missing the mark?

 

For it specifically to be sin, it has to be something that specifically offends your god.

 

It may be (and IMHO is) monstrous, evil, outrageous, beastly (with apologies to actual beasts), horrific, contemptible, vicious, sadistic, uncaring, tragic, and many other things. But sin is a very specific religious concept: disobedience to the will of god.

 

You have to prove (or at least demonstrate a good probability for the existence of) god before you can argue that an act is sinful.

 

 

Even then, you have to demonstrate that this god is in any way concerned with humanity. It cannot simply be the creator of a billion galaxies each with billions of stars and trillions of planets.

 

Christianity is far too narcissistic for me.