Trying to understand

[Guest]

6 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Ok, but how do you determine which writings are actually Paul's, and how do you know that Paul himself was actually inspired?

 

 

Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Proverbs all have some merit as literary texts, in my opinion. But what you say about the Son bears questioning. You speak of Paul as being the only authority here. Why not the gospels? What is it about the writings attributed to Paul that convince you that he alone has the authoritative word on this topic?

 

 

Christ speaks of sin many times in the gospels. Much of what he had to say on the topic was confusing, as was most of the rest of what he is alleged to have said.

 

I agree that Paul (or the writings attributed to him) can be considered to be the author of Christianity as we know it.

 

But why do you think that these writings are inspired? What is it about Paul that makes you think he knew what was really going on? He never met Jesus. Who made him an authority on this topic?

Ok considering I left a "pauline" religion I remember very little, but didn't he have a revelation on the way to Damascus, or he was saved? Much like our modern day prophets who gain a following. 

[disillusioned]

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Ok considering I left a "pauline" religion I remember very little, but didn't he have a revelation on the way to Damascus, or he was saved? Much like our modern day prophets who gain a following. 

 

Allegedly.

[Knott]

14 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Ok, but how do you determine which writings are actually Paul's, and how do you know that Paul himself was actually inspired?

 

 

Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Proverbs all have some merit as literary texts, in my opinion. But what you say about the Son bears questioning. You speak of Paul as being the only authority here. Why not the gospels? What is it about the writings attributed to Paul that convince you that he alone has the authoritative word on this topic?

 

 

Christ speaks of sin many times in the gospels. Much of what he had to say on the topic was confusing, as was most of the rest of what he is alleged to have said.

 

I agree that Paul (or the writings attributed to him) can be considered to be the author of Christianity as we know it.

 

But why do you think that these writings are inspired? What is it about Paul that makes you think he knew what was really going on? He never met Jesus. Who made him an authority on this topic?

 

Paul has 14 books on the bible. We don't know they are inspired, other than what he says.

 

I came to see Paul as the one god used to bring full grace as a message into the earth if you will. To me the gospels represent something totally different, there was no cross, no born again, and most of what Jesus had to say represented the law of Moses reaching the nation of Israel. When confronted in certain situations Jesus replied "what does Moses law say." Every dispensation has had a gospel or a message or a way that God has handled people at that time. We are in the dispensation of Grace and in that dispensation Paul said "it has been given to me to give to you that you may know."

 

Yes and the sin the Jesus dealt with was the nature, its gone, eradicated at the cross.

 

Paul had many Revelations but the thing that set Paul apart was the Revelation he had of the indwelling Christ that was in him from the moment he believed. He writes about that in Galatians chapter 1.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

Paul has 14 books on the bible. We don't know they are inspired, other than what he says.

 

I came to see Paul as the one god used to bring full grace as a message into the earth if you will. To me the gospels represent something totally different, there was no cross, no born again, and most of what Jesus had to say represented the law of Moses reaching the nation of Israel. When confronted in certain situations Jesus replied "what does Moses law say." Every dispensation has had a gospel or a message or a way that God has handled people at that time. We are in the dispensation of Grace and in that dispensation Paul said "it has been given to me to give to you that you may know."

 

Yes and the sin the Jesus dealt with was the nature, its gone, eradicated at the cross.

 

Paul had many Revelations but the thing that set Paul apart was the Revelation he had of the indwelling Christ that was in him from the moment he believed. He writes about that in Galatians chapter 1.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it strikes me as ridiculous to model my life on the inspiration that one particular person had at one particular moment in time. And that he happened to record it and gain a following. Would much rather find my own inspiration in this life, I don't need a misogynistic dude from way back to tell me how it is and how I have to stand down as a woman. Forget that. 

[Knott]

9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Ok considering I left a "pauline" religion I remember very little, but didn't he have a revelation on the way to Damascus, or he was saved? Much like our modern day prophets who gain a following. 

 

I don't know much about Pauline religion, I have heard about it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

I don't know much about Pauline religion, I have heard about it.

Pauline religion: based largely on the teachings of Paul. Its not the name of the religion itself. 

[Knott]

37 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Pauline religion: based largely on the teachings of Paul. Its not the name of the religion itself. 

 

What I heard was individuals using terms like Paul only, Paulites, more in a derogatory type way.

I believe the bible is all for us, but just not all to us as a message.

I see that as rightly dividing, just as dividing soul and spirit, knowing when a particular scripture is addressing the soul or it is addressing spirit, which in general is not done in religion.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

What I heard was individuals using terms like Paul only, Paulites, more in a derogatory type way.

I believe the bible is all for us, but just not all to us as a message.

I see that as rightly dividing, just as dividing soul and spirit, knowing when a particular scripture is addressing the soul or it is addressing spirit, which in general is not done in religion.

I hope you realize that I and most likely a lot of others on this site view the Bible simply as a historical document, not divinely inspired, or the word of God. Therefore our opinions may seem derogatory. I judge it in the same way I would any other document. 

[midniterider]

On 5/25/2018 at 5:08 AM, Knott said:

Hello, first time thread starter with questions. I'll start by saying what I have been reading, I have enjoyed. I haven't read a lot yet but most conversations I read were very intriguing. I've been a Christian for 30 yrs and know the brutality of it. I don't go to a building, but I'm born again. So what I'm curious about is: when you left whatever you left, was it because of all the man-made dogma junk, and being used like a piece of meat in structured religion. 

I was involved for 8 years,  that and a mutitude of other things drove me nuts.

 

I was a Pentecostal from age 30 to 40 after being raised agnostic/atheist. I stopped going to church when I got divorced and reverted back to non-belief, non involvement. My initial step towards deconversion was that  I eventually got fed up with fear, guilt and shame of having "thoughts" that are natural (yet supposedly sinful) but trying to suppress them. Someone might say I quit Christianity so I could go sin. But I'd rather describe it as eliminating an unhealthy obsession with an imaginary being.

 

Anyway, a decade later I come to this site and find the bible is all bunk , in addition to the contradictory bunk of church culture.

[mymistake]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I hope you realize that I and most likely a lot of others on this site view the Bible simply as a historical document, not divinely inspired, or the word of God. Therefore our opinions may seem derogatory. I judge it in the same way I would any other document. 

 

 

I wouldn't even go that far.  It's only literature.  No different than any other religious text.

[disillusioned]

9 hours ago, Knott said:

 

Paul has 14 books on the bible. We don't know they are inspired, other than what he says.

 

Only seven of those fourteen are undisputed by scholars as being actually written by Paul (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles).This is not to say that the others definitely weren't, but their authorship may be safely questioned. This would seem to be problematic to me, if your claim is that Paul had a unique kind of authority.

 

9 hours ago, Knott said:

I came to see Paul as the one god used to bring full grace as a message into the earth if you will. To me the gospels represent something totally different, there was no cross, no born again, and most of what Jesus had to say represented the law of Moses reaching the nation of Israel. When confronted in certain situations Jesus replied "what does Moses law say." Every dispensation has had a gospel or a message or a way that God has handled people at that time. We are in the dispensation of Grace and in that dispensation Paul said "it has been given to me to give to you that you may know."

 

So your contention is that Paul was the first heretical Christian. He made Christ in his own image, having never met the man. Why do you find this compelling?

 

9 hours ago, Knott said:

 

Yes and the sin the Jesus dealt with was the nature, its gone, eradicated at the cross.

 

...so do I need to repent or not?

 

9 hours ago, Knott said:

Paul had many Revelations but the thing that set Paul apart was the Revelation he had of the indwelling Christ that was in him from the moment he believed. He writes about that in Galatians chapter 1.

 

Yes, I've read the New Testament. These preachments of Paul's are only considered inspired by you because he was successful in winning a majority of early Christians over to his side. He could easily have gone down as a heretic. There were lots of sects in early Christianity. It seems to me that you only think of Paul as being The Herald of Truth^TM because he happened to win. This doesn't seem particularly strong to me.

[florduh]

Christian heretics come here because we welcome them while the Christian sites boot them off immediately. Is there perhaps a lesson in that?

[Knott]

20 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I hope you realize that I and most likely a lot of others on this site view the Bible simply as a historical document, not divinely inspired, or the word of God. Therefore our opinions may seem derogatory. I judge it in the same way I would any other document. 

 

I understand, but you do realize the same thing goes on in here as in religion. What I don't get I guess is the point. What is coming out of it? when the mentality is the same "my way or the highway" understanding. I know making claims of Christianity is a threat in here, but just talking about my understanding and not trying to convert anybody, I don't care what other people believe. I'm an ole guy with some years of this shit under his belt. Man people are going to believe what they believe, ain't my job to change that. Perception is the great fallacy

[mymistake]

2 hours ago, Knott said:

 

I understand, but you do realize the same thing goes on in here as in religion. What I don't get I guess is the point. What is coming out of it? when the mentality is the same "my way or the highway" understanding. I know making claims of Christianity is a threat in here, but just talking about my understanding and not trying to convert anybody, I don't care what other people believe. I'm an ole guy with some years of this shit under his belt. Man people are going to believe what they believe, ain't my job to change that. Perception is the great fallacy

 

 

There is a different way to approach life.  The method Christians are familiar with is to start with the conclusion.  You have the truth handed down to you from the holy book and the holy preacher.  Then you interpret everything else that happens through this context.  Facts that conflict with the conclusion are either rationalized or outright ignored.  The conclusion is never discarded but when support for it is lacking then the search continues.

 

But there is a different way!

 

Some people start with skepticism.  All ideas must have demonstrable merit before they shall be considered.  And that merit comes from objective evidence, facts we observe, or from the consequences of valid logic.  Under this system the facts are followed regardless of where they lead.  If new information turns up that conflicts with a previously accepted conclusion then that conclusion gets overturned and discarded.  If an error is found in the logic that was used then it's back to the drawing board to start over.

 

So no, it isn't the same thing as religion.  These two approaches are very different.  

 

 

 

 

 

(edited for clarity)

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

I understand, but you do realize the same thing goes on in here as in religion. What I don't get I guess is the point. What is coming out of it? when the mentality is the same "my way or the highway" understanding. I know making claims of Christianity is a threat in here, but just talking about my understanding and not trying to convert anybody, I don't care what other people believe. I'm an ole guy with some years of this shit under his belt. Man people are going to believe what they believe, ain't my job to change that. Perception is the great fallacy

There you are wrong. In this forum I see a great deal more critical thinking than I ever did in religion (where it isn't encouraged, or isn't allowed). 

[Knott]

19 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

There is a different way to approach life.  The method Christians are familiar with is to start with the conclusion.  You have the truth handed down to you from the holy book and the holy preacher.  Then you interpret everything else that happens through this context.  Facts that conflict with the conclusion are either rationalized or outright ignored.  The conclusion is never discarded but when support for it is lacking then the search continues.

 

But there is a different way!

 

Some people start with skepticism.  All ideas must have demonstrable merit before they shall be considered.  And that merit comes from objective evidence, facts we observe, or from the consequences of valid logic.  Under this system the facts are followed regardless of where they lead.  Conclusions that are in conflict with newly discovered facts get overturned and discarded.  If an error is found in the logic that was used then it's back to the drawing board to start over.

 

So no, it isn't the same thing as religion.  These two approaches are very different.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once conclusions are made the mind set appears the same. 

Example: for christians, once converted it is the world and everyone in it are evil.

 

For the deconverted: eveything religious is evil.

[Knott]

5 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

There you are wrong. In this forum I see a great deal more critical thinking than I ever did in religion (where it isn't encouraged, or isn't allowed). 

 

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

[TABA]

7 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

Once conclusions are made the mind set appears the same. 

Example: for christians, once converted it is the world and everyone in it are evil.

 

For the deconverted: eveything religious is evil.

 

Well, we are all human and humans tend to fall into the trap of making things overly black-and-white.  I think many ex-Christians would agree with me that not everything religious is evil.  Good things are done in the name of the theistic religions.  For me personally, the worst thing about theistic religions is their insistence on indoctrinating children so they grow up often unable to think objectively about these issues.  That is evil enough for me to oppose them.  But we all need to check our biases regularly.  I do think that the ex-Christians in this community do that better than the average  person. 

[mymistake]

44 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

Once conclusions are made the mind set appears the same. 

Example: for christians, once converted it is the world and everyone in it are evil.

 

For the deconverted: eveything religious is evil.

 

 

You really can't tell the difference between "My pastor says everybody who isn't a Christian is evil" and "Now that I can think for myself, I realize that brainwashing somebody in order to enslave them and trap them is unethical behavior"?

 

 

[mymistake]

39 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

 

 

You can't tell the difference between an accusation based on facts and an accusation based on false belief?  Finding the truth is the profit because then you can stop wasting your life being enslaved to somebody else.

[midniterider]

58 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

 

The profit of deconversion from Christianity:

 

How about the elimination of fear that some very judgmental God is keeping account of every thought and action you have.

Then there's elimination of guilt because you did some sin like say "Goddammit!" or looked at porn.

And reduced stress because of these things.

Not wasting my money on church is a good thing.

Not wasting my Sunday/Wednesday on church is a good thing.

Not going to men's Christian cult programming retreats is a good thing.

Not listening to highly programmed Pentecostal douches chastise me for some bible nonsense I'm ignoring is a good thing.

Being free to think how one wants to think is profit.

Living my life the way I like if profit.

Being different is profit. Christianity is being a robot. Conforming to scripture sucks. I prefer to write my own scripture.

 

There is more profit for me in being a non-Christian. If there wasn't , I might still be a Christian. The bennys of Christianity became overshadowed by the negatives.

 

Profit means different things to different people.

 

 

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

Once conclusions are made the mind set appears the same. 

Example: for christians, once converted it is the world and everyone in it are evil.

 

For the deconverted: eveything religious is evil.

 

I'm agnostic. I like the pagan and eastern religions. Christianity doesn't bother me anymore now that I let it go. What I dont like is JWs knocking on my door or Mormon kids on bicycles asking me to talk about joining their religion. Then there is the bullshit Christian crap I read on Facebook. Then I come here and there's another Christian pushing Jesus. Little Christian robots all saying the same bs over and over and over. Yawn.

 

Christians need to take a lesson from the Wiccans when it comes to door-to-door tactics.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Knott said:

 

I understand, but you do realize the same thing goes on in here as in religion. What I don't get I guess is the point. What is coming out of it? when the mentality is the same "my way or the highway" understanding. I know making claims of Christianity is a threat in here, but just talking about my understanding and not trying to convert anybody, I don't care what other people believe. I'm an ole guy with some years of this shit under his belt. Man people are going to believe what they believe, ain't my job to change that. Perception is the great fallacy

 

I think it's like a Democrat walking into the Republican headquarters and striking up pro-abortion conversation. Then complaining when the Republicans there trash him. If the venue was instead, a barber shop then there might be a better mixture of people to talk about abortion with. Here, everyone is pretty staunchly against Christianity. It's even reflected in the name of the website.

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Knott said:

And the finger poining is the same, so where is the action of what the understanding of deconversion brings. We all stand for what we believe, that is easy, where is the bennys. Is there a less of anything? such as ego and so on. What profit if any has it given?

 

Okay, it's time you got off your fucking high horse. We know where you're coming from because we were there before we began to actually think.

 

Get it straight, it is you who have a belief based on faith. Faith (religious faith) is required because there is no reason to hold such beliefs, no facts, no evidence other than somebody's insistence that it's true.

 

Acknowledgement of facts and evidence is not anything like a faith based belief.

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, Knott said:

 

I understand, but you do realize the same thing goes on in here as in religion. What I don't get I guess is the point. What is coming out of it? when the mentality is the same "my way or the highway" understanding. I know making claims of Christianity is a threat in here, ...

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

Please study the term "false equivalence" before you respond.