Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Trying to understand


Knott

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Again the sermon.

 

What are you calling good and evil? You are using these words but I don't know what you mean. I know what I mean by good and evil, but I suspect our definitions differ and I want to know what you mean by "good" and "evil".

 

The ability to do good-evil innately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2018 at 8:08 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.

 

For me personally, as a long-time fervent Christian continually seeking to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," I spent a lot of time "in the Word." The more I studied, though, the more I started seeing that there are problems within the Bible itself that undermine its credibility. I started seeing contradictions between the stories in the Gospels, which led me to conclude that the Bible cannot be the perfect, infallible book that I had been taught that it was. I then considered the possibility that perhaps even though it wasn't the perfect Word of God, there could still be truth to the core of Christianity that was simply conveyed by the fallible writings of the authors of the Bible.

 

In an effort to boost my faith, I did some closer studying of the thing that I had thought was the biggest proof of Christianity, which is the allegedly fulfilled messianic prophecies. This turned out to be the big eye-opener for me. As I read through the Gospels, every time I saw a claim of fulfilled prophecy, I then looked at the original OT verses again, but this time I wanted to make sure they really were strong proof, so I examined the original contexts of the original quotes. What I found was a shocker. Over and over and over again, NT writers were taking OT verses completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. Now, if they really had a true story to tell, would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

 

That completely undermined Christianity for me. For clarification, I was not trying to find fault with the Bible. I did not want to lose the only worldview I had ever known. I was trying to grow in my faith, yet I had no choice but to accept the reality that was before me.

 

After that, I viewed the Bible more skeptically and started seeing other problems that I should have recognized before (but didn't because of the way I was indoctrinated), such as absurdities and divinely sanctioned injustices and cruelties.

 

In the slight chance that you may be interested in more details of my story, feel free to read my extimony here: https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/31461-my-extimony/

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

To Paul Jesus was not God the Son but rather the first of what all Christians would become and also the method through which Christians would become God's sons.  Christians don't all become God the Son.  

 

Ok fair enough we just see it different. I know c's do not become little Christs, far from what I see, not saying that is what your saying I see. So ? Here, how do they become sons (if you believe that). I see it the same way anyone becomes a son or dauther, by a birthing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2018 at 12:58 PM, Knott said:

Ok I did look at it, you know what I need to look at is the proofs that the bible is not the inspried word of god. That is the stumbling block for me now, as far as looking and listening to the different arguments. 

 

I know it's hard for a true believer to conceive of the Bible not being the inspired Word of God. That was really difficult for me, too, when I was a true believer.

 

As others have said, the real burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. Thus, it is not our responsibility to disprove the Bible any more than disproving the Book of Mormon or the Quran or any other truth-claim out there. The onus is on those making the claim, so the burden of proof here would be on you to prove that the Bible is true.

 

That being said, it was the evidence within the Bible that led me to the realization that it is not true. The evidence against Christianity's claims is insurmountable. Otherwise I would not have left the only worldview that I had ever known. I went through hell as I started to come to grips with the fact that what I had held to be true for my whole life was turning out to be a big, fat lie. I would have much rather continued believing than go through that depression and anguish, and only strong evidence against Christianity would have made me go through that.

 

If you would happen to be interested in reading about some of the insurmountable problems with the Bible and Christianity that I am referring to, feel free to read the very detailed 49-page letter that I wrote my parents several years ago. After the introduction, the bulk of the letter tackles lots of problems with the Bible itself, beginning with the contradictions that started my questioning, then the fabricated prophetic fulfillments that sealed Christianity's fate for me, and then followed by other categories such as absurdities, divinely sanctioned injustices, etc. You can download the letter from post #13 (dated August 7, 2011) in this thread: https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/47622-letter-to-my-christian-parents/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2018 at 8:31 AM, 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....

 

OK, this leaves me scratching my head. How do you say that there is no cross in the Gospels when all four canonical gospels have stories of the cross? How can you say there's no "born again" in them when the main "born again" passage comes from the Gospel of John (chapter 3), and the only other place in the Bible that the phrase "born again" is used is in 1 Peter, which is not a book ascribed to Paul?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2018 at 7:05 AM, Knott said:

I have been saying for years now that Ephesians chapter 1 tells a person all they would ever need to know.

 

Then why are there 259 other chapters in the Bible (or more, depending on which version of the Bible one uses)? If all we need to know is in that one chapter, then why is it buried in the midst of a plethora of chapters that are unnecessary?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

Ok fair enough we just see it different. 

 

 

Are you saying Paul was wrong?  Do you reject the doctrine of trinity?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Knott said:

 

I know c's do not become little Christs, far from what I see, not saying that is what your saying I see. So ? Here, how do they become sons (if you believe that). I see it the same way anyone becomes a son or dauther, by a birthing

 

I'm not a Christian.  Paul claimed people became sons of God through adoption.  Some of the gospels use birthing as a metaphor but nobody is literally born a second time.  Anyway if you bother to really study the Bible in depth you will discover that different sections were written by completely different religions and that is why the Bible constantly contradicts itself.  No part of the Bible was written by the form of Christianity that would evolve later under the Romans.  That is why Christians today have non-Biblical doctrines such as trinity. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Citsonga said:

 

OK, this leaves me scratching my head. How do you say that there is no cross in the Gospels when all four canonical gospels have stories of the cross? How can you say there's no "born again" in them when the main "born again" passage comes from the Gospel of John (chapter 3), and the only other place in the Bible that the phrase "born again" is used is in 1 Peter, which is not a book ascribed to Paul?

 

The point being as jesus lived and preached there was no cross, no death on a cross. There was no new birth possible until that that death. Jesus basic message was law peaching, that is all that exsisted, sermon on mount total law. "If you do, you will be" no grace as a message. When questioned about a situation Jesus said "what does Moses law say." As a Christian you may have never looked at several of these deep issues with the Christian religion. Jesus mentioned born again one time and dropped it, there was no understanding for it yet. Paul always referrs to the christ in you (born again) as a mystery. Correct he never used the term born again, they are synonymous terms referring to a birthing. I'm looking at your other posts as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Citsonga said:

 

Then why are there 259 other chapters in the Bible (or more, depending on which version of the Bible one uses)? If all we need to know is in that one chapter, then why is it buried in the midst of a plethora of chapters that are unnecessary?

 

I'll say it like this, if we could only have a certain area of scripture, Ephesians chapter 1 would be that part to tell you what god had in his mind for humanity before anything was created, the plan if you will. We understand the will of god from chapter 1. We know its a revelation and has to be revealed to it's hearers. If you have been reading you will know why I say Paul is the one that gives us what we need to know, he preached the revealed gospel for the born again. All these things that were in god before the foundation of the world are fulfilled in christ. On and on it goes. The glory of god is revealed in his plan, christ in you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

Are you saying Paul was wrong?  Do you reject the doctrine of trinity

 

No, agreeing to disagree. No I believe in the trinity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

I'm not a Christian.  Paul claimed people became sons of God through adoption. 

 

Totally off base

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

No, agreeing to disagree. No I believe in the trinity

 

Paul did not.  I went through verse by verse.  Paul always talks about Jesus and God seperatly.  The Holy Spirit, the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of God are things God bestows.  They are not a separate aspect of God that somehow are a separate person.  They were rather part of God the way your hand is part of you.  But Jesus is always separate from God and in Paul's writings God is the God of Jesus.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

Totally off base

 

 

Ephesians 1:5

he[b]predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

 

 

It's right there in the Bible and the very chapter you said tells us all we need to know.

 

Some people like King James better:

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Knott said:

I'll say it like this, if we could only have a certain area of scripture, Ephesians chapter 1 would be that part to tell you what god had in his mind for humanity before anything was created, the plan if you will. We understand the will of god from chapter 1. We know its a revelation and has to be revealed to it's hearers. If you have been reading you will know why I say Paul is the one that gives us what we need to know, he preached the revealed gospel for the born again. All these things that were in god before the foundation of the world are fulfilled in christ. On and on it goes. The glory of god is revealed in his plan, christ in you.

 

 

It would have been much better for everyone if God had skipped the Garden of Eden and even Earth.  God could have just created everyone who will be saved and started them off in Heaven.  Then there would be no suffering and nobody would go to Hell or destruction.  No purpose was served by creating Earth or any of the problems that happened along the way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Knott said:

I'll say it like this, if we could only have a certain area of scripture, Ephesians chapter 1 would be that part to tell you what god had in his mind for humanity before anything was created, the plan if you will. We understand the will of god from chapter 1. We know its a revelation and has to be revealed to it's hearers. If you have been reading you will know why I say Paul is the one that gives us what we need to know, he preached the revealed gospel for the born again. All these things that were in god before the foundation of the world are fulfilled in christ. On and on it goes. The glory of god is revealed in his plan, christ in you.

 

Seems like you've got it all figured out.

 

Why are you here?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Paul did not.  I went through verse by verse.  Paul always talks about Jesus and God seperatly.  The Holy Spirit, the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of God are things God bestows.  They are not a separate aspect of God that somehow are a separate person.  They were rather part of God the way your hand is part of you.  But Jesus is always separate from God and in Paul's writings God is the God of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

Ephesians 1:5

he[b]predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

 

 

It's right there in the Bible and the very chapter you said tells us all we need to know.

 

Some people like King James better:

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

 

 

 

 

You're @Knott comprehending what MM is telling you in black and white terms. If you're trying to understand, then please try and pay attention to what more experienced people are trying to tell you. We're all, the whole lot of us ex christians here, more experienced than you are with the bible and christianity. 

 

Why?

 

Because we've all been christians and then added a much greater extent of research and biblical knowledge as part of the deconversion process. Here you've shown everyone reading along that you don't even know what's in Paul. And yet you're nay saying and trying to resist what you're being told, as if you know better, when you clearly do Knott. 

 

It's time to pump the brakes a little bit, buddy, and try and digest what you're being told instead of trying to preach back at everyone. You're the one in the humble seat right now. You are the one in need of learning something that you don't already know. And that's why you're in the lion's den. Welcome to reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

Paul did not.  I went through verse by verse.  Paul always talks about Jesus and God seperatly.  The Holy Spirit, the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of God are things God bestows.  They are not a separate aspect of God that somehow are a separate person.  They were rather part of God the way your hand is part of you.  But Jesus is always separate from God and in Paul's writings God is the God of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

Ephesians 1:5

he[b]predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

 

 

It's right there in the Bible and the very chapter you said tells us all we need to know.

 

Some people like King James better:

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

 

 

 

 

Out of context with being born again. Listen to the words " Born Again" there is a birthing involved. Adoption is a process. Your completely out of context with Pauls gospel "christ in you." That is what a christian is, a person with Christ in them. So for the most part judging Christianity as debunk and not even knowing what a Christian is seems a little extreme. Judging a Christian and judging Christianity should be two different things, its not you guys lump it together, age old mistake for an argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Seems like you've got it all figured out.

 

Why are you here?

 

The very words ex-christian intrigued me, there is no such thing. No more than you can unbirth yourself from your parents. If a person has ever been born again, regardless of his mind set, he still has Christ in him/her. It is religion only that believes otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Knott said:

The point being as jesus lived and preached there was no cross, no death on a cross. There was no new birth possible until that that death. Jesus basic message was law peaching, that is all that exsisted, sermon on mount total law. "If you do, you will be" no grace as a message. When questioned about a situation Jesus said "what does Moses law say."

 

Well, it's quite obvious that the story-line before the crucifixion is pre-cross. That's a no-brainer. That's not what you said in what I was replying to, though. You said that in the gospels there is no cross, which is a false statement. The crucifixion is in the gospels. Everybody has mis-stated things at some point, of course, so it's not a big deal. Just try to keep in mind that if you want to communicate something, you should try to say exactly what you mean instead of phrasing things in a way that actually means something different from what you're trying to say.

 

5 hours ago, Knott said:

As a Christian you may have never looked at several of these deep issues with the Christian religion.

 

I studied the Bible a lot more in my time as a Christian (and even for a while after leaving the faith) than the vast, vast majority of Christians do in their whole lifetimes. "Christ" and the Bible were my whole life. I read the entire Bible multiple times, did tons of additional studying, and even memorized hundreds of verses, including three whole books (including your favorite, Ephesians) and a handful of other chapters and shorter passages. As a Christian, I considered my studies as looking deep into the issues, just as you evidently consider your studies to be deep. I no longer view Christianity the same way now, of course, but back then I did. Ironically, it was my intense studies of the Bible that opened my eyes to the fact that it's not true.

 

42 minutes ago, Knott said:

The very words ex-christian intrigued me, there is no such thing. No more than you can unbirth yourself from your parents. If a person has ever been born again, regardless of his mind set, he still has Christ in him/her. It is religion only that believes otherwise.

 

I used to believe pretty much the same thing, convinced that there was no such thing as an ex-christian. The problem with that, though, is that is is based on a faulty premise. It's based on belief in the truthfulness of Christianity and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In reality, it turns out that those religious things are man-made constructs. They simply are not true.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2018 at 1:08 PM, Knott said:

Out of context with being born again. 

 

So the Bible doesn't really mean what it says?   This is how we wind up with thousands of different Christian sects and divisions; each one with it's own personal spin and interpretation and list of the Bible verses that can be ignored.

 

 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 1:08 PM, Knott said:

Listen to the words " Born Again" there is a birthing involved. Adoption is a process. Your completely out of context with Pauls gospel "christ in you." That is what a christian is, a person with Christ in them.  

 

Literal birth is also a process.  Becoming a Christian is a process.  This birthing you talk about doesn't involve your weight dropping to under 10 pounds and then being forced through a birth canal.  And having Christ in you leaves no objective evidence.  I don't see why Paul couldn't have used both analogies since both are found in the New Testament.

 

 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 1:08 PM, Knott said:

So for the most part judging Christianity as debunk and not even knowing what a Christian is seems a little extreme. 

 

Pardon?  I know what a Christian is better than you do.  Also I don't see you refuting any of the contradictions that have been pointed out so far and we have barely scratched the surface.

 

 

 

On 6/3/2018 at 1:08 PM, Knott said:

Judging a Christian and judging Christianity should be two different things, its not you guys lump it together, age old mistake for an argument

 

I don't understand your comment.  All I did is show you what the book of Ephesians actually states.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, Knott said:

 

The very words ex-christian intrigued me, there is no such thing. No more than you can unbirth yourself from your parents. If a person has ever been born again, regardless of his mind set, he still has Christ in him/her. It is religion only that believes otherwise.

 

So we are all still going to Heaven after all?  Cool!  I have many questions for Jesus and some of them might make him feel uncomfortable.  For God I have even more questions.  I hope they are ready to apologize.  But if God were to allow every single human who ever lived into Heaven that would go a long way to making things right. 

 

 

Edit:

I know that brings up the whole Hitler-in-Heaven problem but it should be a piece of cake to an all-knowing, all-powerful God of justice.  Heck I would fill evil-doers with remorse and then have them spend a year per victim apologizing to each of their victims.  Finite crimes deserve a finite punishment.  A creative mind could find a way to make things right.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Knott said:

 

The very words ex-christian intrigued me, there is no such thing. No more than you can unbirth yourself from your parents. If a person has ever been born again, regardless of his mind set, he still has Christ in him/her. It is religion only that believes otherwise.

 

Your religion of one (you) and related religious dogma and proselytizing are boring.

 

Do you have anything else?

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, Knott said:

 

The ability to do good-evil innately.

 

You sir are simply not answering the question. 

 

What are you calling good, what are you calling evil? Even if it's innate, what is it that's innate?

 

Perhaps I could give you my definition of good and we go from there? Good is that which increases wellbeing, or decreases suffering, and evil is that which decreases wellbeing or increases suffering. Would you agree on those definitions?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Knott said:

 

The very words ex-christian intrigued me, there is no such thing. No more than you can unbirth yourself from your parents. If a person has ever been born again, regardless of his mind set, he still has Christ in him/her. It is religion only that believes otherwise.

 

Tomato, tomawto. I once believed and worshiped Jesus. Now I don't. Call it whatever you want. Ex-c, non-believer, ex-believer, ex-idiot. Doesn't matter that much to me.  If we all have Christ still in us, then your job here is done. If I never had Christ in me, that's his problem, not mine.

 

But, Christian nonsense aside,  common sense says that a person is only born once per lifetime. Christians are not born again. They are born once then mentally join a Jesus club. There is no second birth. You were not born again. You can only be born once per lifetime.

 

Mods, could you give Knott an Authentic Believer tag, pretty please?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2018 at 6:48 AM, Knott said:

 

The first few that I have looked at are not a very strong argument imo, I'll keep looking thanks for posting them. 

Mass jew zombie event that's funny haha!!!!

 

Just as an fyi, they were not intended as "arguments," they were just a few examples of the scriptural inconsistencies you requested. There are tons and tons and tons of these inconsistencies. Why? Even if those don't cause you to do look again at the bible, do you not have any metaphysical qualms with what you believe? WHY DOESN'T GOD JUST DEFEAT THE DEVIL?! Why purposefully create millions, if not billions, of souls condemned to hell for no reason whatsoever. If your god exists and was merciful, he would just not create people at all. 

 

 What does Paul have to do with ANYTHING?! Are we supposed to believe what he says because the Bible says Paul had a supernatural encounter with Jesus? Why would I believe that, if the Bible says one thing in Matthew and another in Luke? If the tombstone was rolled away by an earthquake, the other gospels were NOT accurate when they said the tomb was already open. The Bible could be wrong about Paul then, right?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 WHY DOESN'T GOD JUST DEFEAT THE DEVIL?!  

 

 

This sounds like a Darkmatter2525 video.  God is sitting in the void prior to creation and musing to himself.  "If I don't create Lucifer then all of my angels will remain loyal and all of the humans I create will be happy and be rewarded for all eternity.  But if I do create Lucifer then a third of the angels will have to be flung into the abyss and over six billion humans will have to burn in hell forever and ever.   Hmmm . . . what should I do?  What should I do?  Hmmm . . . I'm going to create Lucifer anyway!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
12 hours ago, midniterider said:

Mods, could you give Knott an Authentic Believer tag, pretty please?

 

Done!  He actually earned that badge upon arrival here with his own "speshul brand of christinsanity" and I've been trying to edit his profile ever since.   Finally this morning, the edit "took".    :HaHa:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.