John Piper: Ex-Christians are "enemies of Christ".

[megasamurai]

My mom explicitly believes that atheists don't deserve hell. God sends them to hell to honor their free will, not because they deserve it. She thinks atheists have a conscious yearning to go to hell after death. I don't believe in god and I don't want to go to hell, so I think I'm living proof that unbelief in god does not equal wanting to go to hell. Of course, she thinks I'm lying and believes that I want to go to hell. Thankfully, it's been a year since she's tried witnessing to me.

[Lilith666]

4 minutes ago, megasamurai said:

My mom explicitly believes that atheists don't deserve hell. God sends them to hell to honor their free will, not because they deserve it. She thinks atheists have a conscious yearning to go to hell after death. I don't believe in god and I don't want to go to hell, so I think I'm living proof that unbelief in god does not equal wanting to go to hell. Of course, she thinks I'm lying and believes that I want to go to hell. Thankfully, it's been a year since she's tried witnessing to me.

WHAT? She actually believes that not only do all non-Christians have a concept of hell, but that they want to go there? So many of them have only the vaguest understanding of Christianity! Nobody wants to be tortured, let alone forever! NOBODY! (Except for extreme masochists, but that's irrelevant.)

 

I'm beating a dead horse here, but the mental leaps through space Christians make to justify their beliefs absolutely blow my mind.

[nutrichuckles93]

Exactly what I was thinking. I swear, the stories on this forum. Thank goodness I only believed for barely over a year. The nonsense that gets used to justify the nastiness of the Bible... Christians must be able to see it and are simply in too deep to allow themselves to think otherwise.

[megasamurai]

This is the separation from god hell with metaphorical fire, not the one with literal fire. According to her, god is the source of love and separation from god causes the person to never feel love again. It's so agonizing you'd wish the fire were literal. Also, she believes Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists hate the Christian god (therefore hating love) and consciously want to be separated from him. I wonder, if I surveyed Hindus and Buddhists, how many of them would say they have a strong yearning to be separated from the Christian god after death?

[yunea]

Funny, I'm pretty sure I feel a lot more love and acceptance now that I'm "separated from god". Especially towards myself, but also other people, because I don't need to worry anymore that they're not "right with god" or anything. 

 

And no I would not swap this loving, accepting way of being to eternal fire. 

[TABA]

7 hours ago, nutrichuckles93 said:

Exactly what I was thinking. I swear, the stories on this forum. Thank goodness I only believed for barely over a year. The nonsense that gets used to justify the nastiness of the Bible... Christians must be able to see it and are simply in too deep to allow themselves to think otherwise.

 

 

Christians become very good at mental compartmentalization: walling off certain beliefs and not letting them impinge on the rest of their minds.  This is necessary to avoid insanity.  For example, most Christians profess a belief that non-Christians are destined to burn eternally in Hell (and fundamentalists tend to regard only a minority of those who claim the title to be truly saved).  So they encounter people every day who are clearly Hell-bound: friends, coworkers, family members, maybe even spouses.  How do they cope with the belief that good people, people they like or even love, are going to be sent to the lake of fire by the god they love so much?  Some of them deep down don't actually believe in Hell.  Others just fall back on the hope that God is just and righteous.  Others simply refuse to think about it.  For me, I think I only half believed in Hell and refused to think any more about it.  

 

Be thankful you quickly realized your mistake - recovering from brainwashing has been a long, painful process for so many here.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

Someone who was never a True Christian™ cannot be or become an Ex-Christian.  They will always have been a Non-Christian.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Wow that train of thought just pisses  me off. But I heard that so many times when I was in church. Someone would fall away and questions would arise. someone would always say that maybe they didn't truly have it in the first place! I knew that was a lie when  I saw another preacher fall away years ago. I could feel what I thought was the Holy Ghost pouring from him. He had a father who was an alcoholic and I think because God never delivered him from that, his faith wavered. 

       At the time I was really hurt by it, but now I get it. When you have so much faith in a powerless God and ask for him to save your father and he doesn't, I imagine ya would begin to doubt. 

      I will tell any Christian or Exchristian that I felt what I thought was God when I was in church. I wanted to live for him. I wanted to go to heaven. I did my veey best which was probably a shit ton better than most people. Believe me ive come across some piss poor christians. I gaurantee that if someone examined this guys life with they would find some sin.

      The facts are you are going to feel what you believe to be true. Even the Islamic terrorist feels "God" and truly belives what he does is a service to his creator. I'm sure Pat from the 700 club believes robbing millions from gullible men and women across the world is a righteous act aswell. 

      

DB

      

[Storm]

28 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Someone who was never a True Christian™ cannot be or become an Ex-Christian.  They will always have been a Non-Christian.

I am not a true Scotsman....

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Storm said:

I am not a true Scotsman....

 

No, you are a Non-Scotsman, apparently.

[Storm]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No, you are a Non-Scotsman, apparently.

Well that clears it up now. Thanks... I think...

[Lilith666]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Someone who was never a True Christian™ cannot be or become an Ex-Christian.  They will always have been a Non-Christian.

I think there are two basic types of Christians: the ones who actually put their religion, or their version of it, above everything else, and those who believe they do, but discover at some point there is something that is even more important to them. The first type will reject science, ethics, and all other standards in favor of their religion, and see nothing wrong with doing so. The second reject Christianity when they discover it doesn't line up with the standards that they value. For me, it was morality: murdering and trying to control people is wrong, and nothing biblegod says or does can make it right. For others, it's the incongruity with evolution, for instance. By "True Christian," do you mean the first type, to whom their religion is more important than anything else, and for whom Christianity is an attitude as much as a belief? If so, then I see your point in a way - even though some of us here were as much Christian as anybody. Because the first type are an altogether different kind of people than the ones who don't make Christianity the ultimate foundation of their lives, from which come all other beliefs.

[sdelsolray]

33 minutes ago, Lilith666 said:

I think there are two basic types of Christians: the ones who actually put their religion, or their version of it, above everything else, and those who believe they do, but discover at some point there is something that is even more important to them. The first type will reject science, ethics, and all other standards in favor of their religion, and see nothing wrong with doing so. The second reject Christianity when they discover it doesn't line up with the standards that they value. For me, it was morality: murdering and trying to control people is wrong, and nothing biblegod says or does can make it right. For others, it's the incongruity with evolution, for instance. By "True Christian," do you mean the first type, to whom their religion is more important than anything else, and for whom Christianity is an attitude as much as a belief? If so, then I see your point in a way - even though some of us here were as much Christian as anybody. Because the first type are an altogether different kind of people than the ones who don't make Christianity the ultimate foundation of their lives, from which come all other beliefs.

 

My post was a mockery of Piper's True Christian™ self-serving apology and childish (but expected) attempt to control others.  

[Tsathoggua9]

On 3/2/2017 at 11:34 AM, Daffodil said:

The funny thing is . . . he's absolutely right!  I did absolutely everything (short of speaking in tongues) that I was told I had to do, and it never quite "stuck", so yeah, I guess I was never a "True Christian"!  I never thoroughly turned my brain off to blindly accept the fairytale, so yes, guilty as charged.  And you know what? Don't give a shit!  If someone were to say that to me now, "Ex-Christians are the enemies of Christ" or "You were never a true Christian in the first place", my response would be "Yeah . . . and?"  I refuse to be angry about it anymore.  I simply don't give . . . a . . . shit.

 

Yeah, this is me, too. Fundamentalist Christianity (specifically, "Church of Christ") was definitely an influence on me, but not the only one, by a long shot. I never really was convinced that the Bible was literally true, even as a child. I read too widely for the whole "fundie mentality" to take. Definitely not a "true Christian"!

[L.B.]

I could go back to church now and totally bullshit everyone; I could start playing music for church again, talking like a walking Bible commentary, always spouting off about being led this way or that.

 

Fact is, there's absolutely no way for any Christard to "know" that someone is a fellow Christard except by how they behave.

 

For a god that chooses (or grants people the power to choose) "salvation" based on grace and not works, there sure is a lot of working to be done - you'd better keep up appearances if you want to fit in.

 

See, when I didn't just struggle, but actively gave up on the whole thing, the fuckers gave up on me. It's been seven months this week since I've been in church, and six months since I've been in the same room with any of those assholes. When I was around them, not a single fucking one of them asked me where I'd been or what I'd been up to, including the "pastors".

 

It's all about conformity to whatever herd mentality the group ascribes to: we're persecuted, we're the heroes of the downtrodden, we're the open-minded accepting ones, or whatever. They gather with people that are like them politically and socio-economically, and you either belong or you don't.

 

Fuck them.

[megasamurai]

At any rate, some of the specifics of the separation from god theory are pretty wacky. No, atheists are not separated from god until they go to hell (because he's omnipresent on earth, but not the afterlife? Apparently he's just almost omnipresent.) When atheists feel love on earth, it's because god powers our love like a battery. In hell, we won't have the ability to feel love because we are away from its power source. Why would love need a supernatural power source? There seems to be non-supernatural sources of love. My family's beliefs are just weird. The "love battery" theory is pretty off the wall. 

[nutrichuckles93]

1 hour ago, L.B. said:

For a god that chooses (or grants people the power to choose) "salvation" based on grace and not works, there sure is a lot of working to be done - you'd better keep up appearances if you want to fit in.

Exactly what I've found. A shit load of work and life-fixing to be done for a supposedly free gift.

[Lilith666]

6 hours ago, L.B. said:

For a god that chooses (or grants people the power to choose) "salvation" based on grace and not works, there sure is a lot of working to be done - you'd better keep up appearances if you want to fit in.

Gawd doesn't tolerate laziness! A relationship with him requires effort!

Except in real, healthy friendships, the relationship isn't mandatory. And instead of having real conversations and doing stuff together, he tells you what to do in every aspect of your life.

[Guest]

On 3/1/2017 at 7:55 AM, L.B. said:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-leads-christians-away-from-christ

 

Notice the title... this self-righteous ass says there are factors that lead 'Christians' (you can feel the air-quotes) away from Christ.

 

Once again, these deluded idiots really believe there's a magical ghost that changes them from awful pieces of hell-bound shit to awful pieces of shit that Jeebus just luuuuuvs.

 

No mention of cultural indoctrination, no mention of clinging to religion in order to satisfy one's prejudices or address/soothe one's felt inadequacies.

 

Sorry, gang... if you were once a SO-CALLED 'Christian', and you've rejected the great saving grace of the sovereign Lord Jesus, it's because you were never magically zapped by the ghost in the first place.

 

Oh, how Piper and his arrogant asshole followers WEEP for you, dear people... how their hearts sink and twist at even the MENTION OF YOUR NAME!!

 

In the end, though, you were never the genuine article, so all the mistreatment, emotional abuse, manipulation and stupidity you endured was all YOUR FAULT. It wouldn't have felt that way if you were REALLY SAVED.

 

Fuck them.

I've probably listened to over a hundred John Piper Sermons, and even read his book on the exegesis of Romans 9, and I wouldn't say he is an idiot.  If you're a Calvinist and your outlook is that of a Reformed Baptist, then his writings and sermons will be very powerful because they reflect so well the Reformed interpretation of the Bible and is also not afraid to speak the harsh truths of the Bible.  As the author of this article noted:

 

"Paul exhorts the believers in Philippi, “Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:17–18). Who are these enemies of Christ?

I doubt that they are just worldly people who hate Christianity and do whatever they can to belittle Jesus and stifle his influence. The familiarity (“of whom I have often told you”) and tenderness (“and now tell you even with tears”) suggests another explanation. These enemies of Christ likely have professed faith in him at some point in their lives. Maybe they’re even professing faith in him now. Either way, they are suicidally rejecting him by how they live (they “walk as enemies”). Paul’s tender, broken heart bears the aching aroma of love lost, not sustained indifference or disdain."

It is the content of his interpretation which informs his beliefs and would necessarily cause just about any Calvinist, even myself at one point, to think that Ex-Christians could rightly be said to be enemies of the cross.  As you can see on this very site that there is a tremendous amount of material dedicated to refuting the Biblical message.  

 

People like this I think are incredibly wrong, but I don't think they're idiots or disingenuous.  

 

[megasamurai]

I tried with all my might to love the Biblical god but couldn't. If he was second or third on my "most loved" list it wasn't enough. I wanted to go to hell because I loved him more than anyone else except for my family.

[♦ ficino ♦]

As long as Christianity has been around, it's attracted men who love to write long, heavily rhetorical denunciations of other people. It really becomes wearisome to see such stuff produced century after century.

[L.B.]

People like this I think are incredibly wrong, but I don't think they're idiots or disingenuous.

 

I don't care how educated, eloquent or insightful a person may otherwise be; when they base their fantasies of alienation and prejudice in this world, and eternal torture in the next, on the lunatic mandates of an invisible misogynist war deity who dictates his "will" through a contradictory and myopic collection of primitive folk-tales, that person is a fucking idiot.

 

The lengths that these assholes go to in order to try to legitimize their bullshit fairy-tales and make them seem even remotely plausible are ludicrous.

 

See, the thing is, IF any of this shit was true, there would only be two viable options: the classical, Council-Of-Trent Roman Catholicism of that church's glory days (where you spend your days trying to appease god),

or the Reformed/Reformers/Reformation position (where if god isn't already pleased to arbitrarily choose you, you're fucked).

 

There would be no other options; you can't have a god who wants blood sacrifice who DOESN'T have a ton of rules about every aspect of life, and you can't have a god who is already satisfied with his own actions who DOES have a ton of rules. The Catholic god needs its giant ego stroked by groveling FOR mercy; the Protestant god needs its ego stroked BECAUSE it has shown (ahem) mercy.

 

The proof that none of this shit is true is as plain as day - there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on either side (nor among the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of other groups who differ from one or the other of the main camps) concerning how the hell one even DEFINES a Christian.

 

You can join my family by becoming our friend, having meaningful experiences and making yourself valuable to us in important ways and at significant times (the 'catholic' position).

 

You can also be in my family by virtue of birth/blood relation, which is an indelible mark and an unbreakable bond, practical relationships aside (the 'protestant' position).

 

What you cannot do, however, is break into my house, eat my food, wear my clothes and follow me around. You have no permission to do any of those things, and they will get you hurt at best.

 

Neither can you petition a court to have your surname changed to mine and apply to be MADE a member of my biological family. It simply can't be done.

 

What we have in the world today, in contrast, is a bunch of people claiming to be 'christians', the 'true ones', because they have done both of the latter two things. They have stolen the idea of blood-atonement from the catholics who stole it from the Bronze-age Jews who stole it from the pagan cults around them. Then they have gone and declared that they have BOTH blood-sacrifice AND freedom to behave pretty much however they please as far as the actual Bible rules go... what they don't have is the freedom to escape their own self-imposed groupthink prisons.

 

They say they have both the meaningful ceremonies AND the legal/forensic/god-elected/god-chosen 'paperwork' that says they belong. As soon as any two of these groups encounter each other, they inevitably fight because there's no way for either group to prove they are any more than a bunch of interlopers.

 

It all comes down to conformity of behavior. Believe me when i tell you I've seen enough evidence that conformity of THOUGHT doesn't exist (because I've seen many people betray their group-approved behavior behind closed doors). It's conformity to what people can see when you're being watched, especially on Sundays - that's the thing that drives Christards, and it's the thing that keeps jackasses like Piper and his friends writing shit like the article I posted in the OP.

[Guest]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 7:47 PM, L.B. said:

 

 

 

I don't care how educated, eloquent or insightful a person may otherwise be; when they base their fantasies of alienation and prejudice in this world, and eternal torture in the next, on the lunatic mandates of an invisible misogynist war deity who dictates his "will" through a contradictory and myopic collection of primitive folk-tales, that person is a fucking idiot.

If that's the case, then all of us on this website have been "fucking idiots."  If someone is a Christian who accepts a somewhat literal interpretation of the text, they will necessarily accept what that text says about those who oppose the Christian gospel (i.e. Ex-Christians) and will endorse some degree of divine punishment. 

 

Such people, which seems to have included yourself and everyone else here, did not believe these texts were "primitive folk-tales," but rather were god-breathed texts which are accepted by over 2 billion people living today.  For you to conflate your present views with the views of what would be a true believer, I think is a mistake which distorts an accurate appraisal of the Christian religion from the perspective of what it is actually like to believe this.

 

Quote

The lengths that these assholes go to in order to try to legitimize their bullshit fairy-tales and make them seem even remotely plausible are ludicrous.

You seem to be operating under the false assumption that reason is a human faculty which is tailored to gain knowledge of the truth.  Rather it is a capacity which is utilized by Homo sapiens to win arguments and defend their usually intuitively derived moral assumptions about the world.  Is the entirety of humanity a collection of assholes who up until just recently have all believed in some form of god? 

 

People will go to any lengths to legitimize their beliefs, because that is what humans can be observed doing since the dawn of written language. 

 

Quote

See, the thing is, IF any of this shit was true, there would only be two viable options: the classical, Council-Of-Trent Roman Catholicism of that church's glory days (where you spend your days trying to appease god),

or the Reformed/Reformers/Reformation position (where if god isn't already pleased to arbitrarily choose you, you're fucked).

This also I think is inaccurate.  What about the Eastern Orthodox church which split off in the Great Schism of the 11th Century?  What about the Arminian branch of the Protestant Reformation, as not all Reformers believed in Calvinistic doctrines of Election and Predestination?  The Council of Trent also represents a somewhat significant shift in Roman Catholic theology as well in order to respond to the Protestant Reformation, so I don't see that as the only other option either.

 

Quote

There would be no other options; you can't have a god who wants blood sacrifice who DOESN'T have a ton of rules about every aspect of life, and you can't have a god who is already satisfied with his own actions who DOES have a ton of rules. The Catholic god needs its giant ego stroked by groveling FOR mercy; the Protestant god needs its ego stroked BECAUSE it has shown (ahem) mercy.

First of all, if there is no god, then there must be a perfectly naturalistic explanation for why Christian theology developed in such a way that these concerns were central during the times in which they were raised.  Martin Luther started a controversy primarily over the practice of indulgences, and escalated to the roll of the Church in bestowing grace.  In Roman Catholic theology, the grace of god is bestowed through the sacraments, which of course the church is responsible for administering.  Luther had started to investigate the writings of Augustine of Hippo whose theology was what we would call, Calvinistic, and he had also talked about in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans concerning the merit which Christ had earned to be imparted to believers via faith.  The controversy also surrounded the concerns with the ability for lay people to read the Bible in their native tongues, rather than only being able to read the text in the Latin Vulgate, as Luther came to challenge the Magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church to have special authority to control interpretation of the Biblical texts. 

 

These are somewhat technical and historically based interpretations of the Christian tradition, which at the time involved much scholarly debate and ultimately violence to settle these differences. 

 

From the perspective of hindsight, it seems a little silly to be going over these details for what we now see as texts which don't have any sway over reality, but we can't properly understand the history unless we accept the fact that these people really did believe it, and were not idiots or evil (as there is no such thing). 

 

Quote

The proof that none of this shit is true is as plain as day

It is the largest religion in history in terms of followers, and that number is still in the billions.  When it comes to human psychology, almost nothing that is true is plain as day if it concerns cultural meaning.

 

Quote

there is nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on either side (nor among the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of other groups who differ from one or the other of the main camps) concerning how the hell one even DEFINES a Christian.

Yes, all aspects of human life when it comes to things that matter culturally, whether art, politics, social issues, and of course religion will spawn a near endless number of differences as is the case with human nature. 

 

Quote

You can join my family by becoming our friend, having meaningful experiences and making yourself valuable to us in important ways and at significant times (the 'catholic' position).

 

You can also be in my family by virtue of birth/blood relation, which is an indelible mark and an unbreakable bond, practical relationships aside (the 'protestant' position).

 

What you cannot do, however, is break into my house, eat my food, wear my clothes and follow me around. You have no permission to do any of those things, and they will get you hurt at best.

 

Neither can you petition a court to have your surname changed to mine and apply to be MADE a member of my biological family. It simply can't be done.

 

What we have in the world today, in contrast, is a bunch of people claiming to be 'christians', the 'true ones', because they have done both of the latter two things. They have stolen the idea of blood-atonement from the catholics who stole it from the Bronze-age Jews who stole it from the pagan cults around them. Then they have gone and declared that they have BOTH blood-sacrifice AND freedom to behave pretty much however they please as far as the actual Bible rules go... what they don't have is the freedom to escape their own self-imposed groupthink prisons.

All religions are a collection of various syncretisms which occurred over a long period of time, and the default human position it seems is to adopt some form of ethnocentrism, where all perspectives are evaluated relative to one's own cultural traditions.  This is how human beings have operated for the past 30,000 years.

 

Quote

They say they have both the meaningful ceremonies AND the legal/forensic/god-elected/god-chosen 'paperwork' that says they belong. As soon as any two of these groups encounter each other, they inevitably fight because there's no way for either group to prove they are any more than a bunch of interlopers.

Every group has categories for determining who is in the group, and who isn't and each of the requirements are relative to their own group's interpretation and will likely conflict with another group's. 

 

Your beef to me seems to be with human nature as it has been expressed throughout human history, as religion is a purely human phenomenon. 

 

Quote

It all comes down to conformity of behavior. Believe me when i tell you I've seen enough evidence that conformity of THOUGHT doesn't exist (because I've seen many people betray their group-approved behavior behind closed doors). It's conformity to what people can see when you're being watched, especially on Sundays - that's the thing that drives Christards, and it's the thing that keeps jackasses like Piper and his friends writing shit like the article I posted in the OP.

All religions and cultures have sought to conform behavior to be acceptable to the group to a degree, Monotheistic faiths tend to have more of an emphasis on personal piety than say a Polytheistic religion.  That doesn't mean that Roman culture didn't have for example, its own means for conforming behaviors and obliterating historical cultures in the process.  Human beings are governed by physical brains and thus, this makes us all hypocrites to the beliefs and values we espouse as much of our behavior is governed by unconscious processes (contrary to what our prefrontal cortex tries to convince us of). 

 

Many people who come here and are questioning are still Christians, perhaps even of a Reformed variety and respect John Piper's thinking.  I think that calling them "Christards" or "fucking idiots," is a rather emotional argument that doesn't accurately represent their beliefs, nor how religion and culture functions from an anthropological or sociological perspective.  Much of your own bitterness towards religion seems to be reflected in the above post and my suggestion is to try and appreciate how human rationality and belief ACTUALLY functions in Homo sapiens, rather than trying to hold human beings up to your own standard of rationality. 

[L.B.]

@TrueScotsman

 

Thank you, doctor; I feel much better now.

 

Here's the thing: I don't believe there is any validity to religious beliefs in personal, knowable deities. Whether I am bitter or not is of no consequence. My bitterness makes not a shred of this bullshit any less than bullshit.

 

You asked, "Is the entirety of humanity a collection of assholes who up until just recently have all believed in some kind of god?"

 

No, the entirety of humanity is not a collection of assholes; religion is run BY assholes, and those who embrace it and push it on others are also assholes until they come to their fucking senses. Many millions of them were NOT assholes; they chose to believe shit that MADE them into assholes, because they needed rationale for the shit going on in their lives (see "BOOM" below).

 

No one is an asshole unless and until their unfounded, ignorant beliefs become the ground upon which our relationships, our business dealings, our politics are based.

 

I t

hink that calling them "Christards" or "fucking idiots," is a rather emotional argument that doesn't accurately represent their beliefs...

 

I think I don't give a shit. The people I am referring to are not all swaying under the bristles of a broad brush. The people I am referring to have particular sets of stupid, annoying qualities that are engendered in them by their unreasonable bullshit fairy-tales.

 

I also don't think your argument about Arminians, Eastern Orthodox, etc holds water, because every one of them was an offshoot of an offshoot, and none of them accurately reflect THEIR original intent, either. I believe my point, wherein one can either be right with a god by effort or by "divine election", stands. None of the splinter groups you mentioned have a core, central belief in regards to relationship to their deity that differs from one of those two positions.

 

Lastly, I am not here to understand religion, prop anyone up by saying I understand why they believe bullshit, or any other nice things like that. I am here to vent, to fuck with the Christards who come here trying to proselytize, and to be myself while I am surrounded by people who won't let me be that.

 

You want a perfectly naturalistic explanation of how those beliefs developed? Volcano went BOOM, thunder went BOOM, earthquake made things go BOOM. Primitive, barely-out-of-the-caves people shit themselves because BOOM. Imagined that a great big version of themselves lived in the sky and made BOOM. Soon, one primitive figured out how to control the fears of the other primitives by making up stories about the Big Primitive Who Goeth BOOM. The "smart" primitive could then leverage his "knowledge" and get extra food from the scared tribesmen.

 

Fast forward, and the clothes are better, and the beliefs apparently more nuanced, but in the end, some assholes tell stories about BOOM, and people who want to explain their fears and rationalize the bad things that happen flock to the leadership of assholes telling fairy-tales, and they gladly pay in food and money and fame.

Sure, by now, there are lots of assholes in leadership who are too far removed from the origins of BOOM to remember WHY they are telling such magical bullshit, so they earnestly believe this shit now, but that makes it bullshit nonetheless.

 

You can tell me that the thunderstorm is a big, angry man going BOOM all you want, but once you start telling me and my neighbors that Big Angry BOOM is coming for ME, you've got a problem.

[Ellinas]

Leaving all else aside, all I really need to look at is the title of this thread:

Ex-Christians are "enemies of Christ".

To which I reply:

"Yep.  Is that supposed to be news?  Or something of which to be ashamed?  I don't think so..."