homosexuals call for conversion therapy to cure christianity

[midniterider]

You know, if Jesus was not real but was instead just someone's personal imagination, then that would explain why different Christians have doctrinal differences. An imaginary Jesus being a kind of sub-personality would provide a believer with whatever doctrinal feedback they preferred. And it would be true to say that people in Denomination X are praying to a different Jesus than Denomination Y. In fact everyone in the same denomination would be praying to a completely different Jesus. Their own, personal Jesus, as Depeche Mode might say. So you really can have a personal relationship with (your imaginary) Jesus.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Formula for selecting the true denomination (and doctrine):

The luckiest ones just happen to be born into (and indoctrinated by) the True Denomination.

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The luckiest ones just happen to be born into (and indoctrinated by) the True Denomination.

 

They aren't lucky...they are selected before they are born....because they are special.  Yeah, special.

[LogicalFallacy]

11 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

....because they are special.  Yeah, special.

 

No no! No one is special. The bible declares that we are all sinners fallen short of the glory of God, and CF himself has professed that "I'm not special. I'm a sinful man. ".

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 7/7/2019 at 6:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

CF himself has professed that "I'm not special. I'm a sinful man. ".

 

 

And also, pre-selected by the holy spirit to find his way to the TRVTH of correct doctrine. You have to put the piecemeal story all together.

 

Pre-selected before birth to live a life as a sinful man and put a gun to his own head to try and end it all. Only to see the first light of TRVTH at gun point full of heated emotion. And then to start wading through some of the 'incorrect denominations' until the white dove finally landed on the correct one. Then, finally, finding his true pre-destiny at the very top of the pile, or the head corner stone of correct doctrine if you will. From where he now apparently looks down on all denominations and religion aside from his own. Still a sinful man, no doubt, but quite a privileged sinful man according to his own mentality and personal expression both here and abroad on public forums. 

 

On 7/7/2019 at 2:34 PM, midniterider said:

An imaginary Jesus being a kind of sub-personality would provide a believer with whatever doctrinal feedback they preferred.

 

Exactly. These guys have been providing us with terrific case studies for psychological analysis of the cult think mind, self reassuring delusion, and the like. 

 

I hope some of our newbies have been following the back and forth and taking it all in. 

 

@DestinyTurtle please feel free to expand on any of this. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

These guys have been providing us with terrific case studies for psychologica

Oohhh.  Stay away from psychoanalysis.  Luth really doesn't like it.  He hides his fear of it behind sarcasm and humor; but he really doesn't like it at all.

[Joshpantera]

Thanks @TABA, the cartoon ought to be posted here as well: 

 

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

On 7/8/2019 at 6:41 AM, Joshpantera said:

  On 7/7/2019 at 6:20 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

CF himself has professed that "I'm not special. I'm a sinful man. ".

Geez. That kind of performative, and narcissistic self-abasement is a dime a dozen. I've seen christians of many different kinds do this. It gets really bizarre sometimes with people taking turns trying to "out-humble" each out in a game of one-upmanship. I've seen preachers boast about their history of sexual conquests on stage, because, you know, it showed how "great" the mercy they received is. In reality, though, it's just them boasting about their sex life in public. I think the first one to do this was St. Augustine himself, in "Confessions" - that, and eating Pears, which apparently is REALLY BAD. I mean REALLY BAD. He STOLE a PEAR and LIKED IT. LORD SAVE ME. *cough* excuse me... anyways he thought stealing pears was the worst thing he's ever done never mind the womanizing...

 

On 7/8/2019 at 6:41 AM, Joshpantera said:

 

On 7/7/2019 at 2:34 PM, midniterider said:

An imaginary Jesus being a kind of sub-personality would provide a believer with whatever doctrinal feedback they preferred.

I've noticed people, in practice, mostly project whoever they are or whatever they value to the vaguely defined "god" or "Jesus" figure. People with a sadistic edge picture a sadistic god that enjoys inflicting pain on people (hell fire and brimstone), and sensitive and kind people will define god as a principle or person described as such. I have a certain affection and partiality to the ancient Greek gods who all represent character traits that all play in a weird, psychedelic, drama rather than attempting to describe a supreme entity that is impossible to describe by definition. In the end different Xian denominations are providing colorful illustrations of what character traits they want to elevate.

 

On 7/8/2019 at 6:41 AM, Joshpantera said:

@DestinyTurtle please feel free to expand on any of this. 

 

That's all I got right now. Sorry my brain is soup at about this hour when I get back from work.

 

Praise Zeus!

[mwc]

     Hmmm.  We need a way to solve another problem that doesn't exist.  I know.  We'll say that it takes "perfect love" to accomplish a task that no one needs to actually do.  And now that this is done we can get "salvation" which is equally meaningless.  This is all coming together now.

 

          mwc

 

[Joshpantera]

Yes, I like where Campbell said something to the tune of, 'an imaginary cure for an imaginary disease.' 

 

 

13 hours ago, DestinyTurtle said:

Geez. That kind of performative, and narcissistic self-abasement is a dime a dozen. I've seen christians of many different kinds do this. It gets really bizarre sometimes with people taking turns trying to "out-humble" each out in a game of one-upmanship. I've seen preachers boast about their history of sexual conquests on stage, because, you know, it showed how "great" the mercy they received is. In reality, though, it's just them boasting about their sex life in public. I think the first one to do this was St. Augustine himself, in "Confessions" - that, and eating Pears, which apparently is REALLY BAD. I mean REALLY BAD. He STOLE a PEAR and LIKED IT. LORD SAVE ME. *cough* excuse me... anyways he thought stealing pears was the worst thing he's ever done never mind the womanizing...

 

Some similar examples are:

 

'I used to be atheist, or even I used to be a satanist, but look at me now!'

 

Maybe they were, but most of the time it strikes me as bullshit for attention more than anything else. And others feed off of it and seek attention for themselves by making similar confessions and it does turn into one big psychological game of one-upmanship, as you say. Just take a look at christforums and the conversations over there ruled by a Calvinist elite and filtered through that psychological mindset. Horrible sinners on one hand, but a narcissistic elite on the other. Professional secular counselors would have a hay day over there. 

 

13 hours ago, DestinyTurtle said:

I've noticed people, in practice, mostly project whoever they are or whatever they value to the vaguely defined "god" or "Jesus" figure. People with a sadistic edge picture a sadistic god that enjoys inflicting pain on people (hell fire and brimstone), and sensitive and kind people will define god as a principle or person described as such. I have a certain affection and partiality to the ancient Greek gods who all represent character traits that all play in a weird, psychedelic, drama rather than attempting to describe a supreme entity that is impossible to describe by definition. In the end different Xian denominations are providing colorful illustrations of what character traits they want to elevate.

 

For all the grief people gave DM Murdock, she pointed out a lot of valuable things about christianity. Everyone making their own version of jesus is one of those points. You can go down the line and look at academics doing this too as they try and argue for a real historical jesus at the core of it all. The character is a story line character spread across various authors making their own renditions of the story line character. 

 

He's the prince of peace to one person, but to another he comes not to bring peace but a sword. It's so mixed up and across the board that people can pretty much pick something and ignore everything contrary in order to create their own personal jesus. And then, like you rightly point out, it ends up being a projection of their own psychological status. If aggressive, their jesus is aggressive. If peaceful, their jesus is peaceful. If narcissistic, their jesus is narcissistic. If conservative, their jesus is conservative. If liberal, their jesus is liberal. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 7/7/2019 at 6:06 PM, sdelsolray said:

 

They aren't lucky...they are selected before they are born....because they are special.  Yeah, special.

 

I've been talking to my wife about this Calvinism and predestination business. One of her first reactions was to ask what about John 3:16 and similar verses?

 

Quote

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

All the verses in the NT that suggest belief in Jesus alone = salvation seem to fly in the face of predestination theology. He's already selected who will be saved. It's not as if the great commission has any meaning in this context. Winning converts has no meaning, especially when some of those converts have the inability to be saved regardless of their conversions, and regardless of whether or not they simply believe in the resurrection. All of the proselytizing verses and great commission oriented content spread throughout the NT seems like an achilles heel to this theology. I'm sure they try and weasel out of it somehow. But trying to excuse their way out of it probably results in digging a deeper hole, as it does in just about any case of apologetic's. 

[mwc]

     If you're predestined to believe you will believe in jesus until you die.  If you're not then you may well believe in jesus but you will stop believing at some point or you will have simply deceived yourself into thinking you truly believed when you had not.  The seed is sown.  Some places it grows and others it takes root and dies and others it doesn't...blah...blah...blah.  God sends jesus to save those who will be saved.  The ones who are supposed to be saved.  The ones where the seed is really growing.  All the rest?  Nope.  Jokes on them.

 

     The great thing about all this is you still don't know if you're saved until you're saved.  You can die believing but still be one of those who jesus denies knowing.  You don't know until you get it.  Those who adhere to being a part of these "elect" should be far more humble than they are since their salvation isn't as secure as they love to think.  But, I guess, if they didn't think it so hard they'd have to worry about their election and perhaps that might cause them to consider not actually being elect which I suppose isn't a thought someone who is truly elect would think?  I guess you just know.  I knew I wasn't going to hell as a xian.  And now I'm certain I'm not as an atheist.  

 

          mwc

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I've been talking to my wife about this Calvinism and predestination business. One of her first reactions was to ask what about John 3:16 and similar verses?

 

 

All the verses in the NT that suggest belief in Jesus alone = salvation seem to fly in the face of predestination theology. He's already selected who will be saved. It's not as if the great commission has any meaning in this context. Winning converts has no meaning, especially when some of those converts have the inability to be saved regardless of their conversions, and regardless of whether or not they simply believe in the resurrection. All of the proselytizing verses and great commission oriented content spread throughout the NT seems like an achilles heel to this theology. I'm sure they try and weasel out of it somehow. But trying to excuse their way out of it probably results in digging a deeper hole, as it does in just about any case of apologetic's. 

 

https://www.christforums.com/forums/topic/24177-is-it-possible-to-fall-away-from-the-faith-and-lose-salvation/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-92252

 

See message 158 and 161 and 169 (point 6). They discuss John 3:16 and the elect. 

 

I think there were several different weaseling out maneuver's in play such as what does 'whosoever' refer to in John 3:16? And (according to atpollard) it turns out that 'whosoever' doesn't mean 'whosoever', it means the people 'who are doing what God wants.' I think it was mentioned in that thread that even though you are elect, if you choose to ignore God he might make life suck for you. I think I also read someone who said something like "if you continue behaving terribly before God he'll just unelect you." But now I can't find it, so I might be wrong. The main takeaway I got from the thread is that if you're elect then god will flip your mind around and make you want him. So I guess you'll end up being divinely lobotomized for Jesus if you don't give yourself over freely.

 

I think the idea of the Elect is an interesting emotional snare for the gullible. It seems designed to play on your guilt or fear. "Gosh, God may have chosen me...I better straighten my shit up!" Once again, though the Calvinists are like all other Christians in that they have to do the talking for their almighty God, while He Himself is silent.

 

How bout a Calvinism thread? I'll start one. 

[Joshpantera]

On 7/11/2019 at 9:56 AM, Joshpantera said:

Some similar examples are:

 

'I used to be atheist, or even I used to be a satanist, but look at me now!'

 

Maybe they were, but most of the time it strikes me as bullshit for attention more than anything else. And others feed off of it and seek attention for themselves by making similar confessions and it does turn into one big psychological game of one-upmanship, as you say. Just take a look at christforums and the conversations over there ruled by a Calvinist elite and filtered through that psychological mindset. Horrible sinners on one hand, but a narcissistic elite on the other. Professional secular counselors would have a hay day over there. 

 

Well now, not long after I posted this look what popped up as the current last page of the christforums discussion: https://www.christforums.com/forums/topic/24177-is-it-possible-to-fall-away-from-the-faith-and-lose-salvation/page/8/

 

A former bomb making terrorist, followed by our friend william trying to game for his bullet in the mouth testimony right behind it. Picture of bullet for full effect. And Becky cheer leading behind them....

 

 

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

See message 158 and 161 and 169 (point 6). They discuss John 3:16 and the elect. 

 

I think there were several different weaseling out maneuver's in play such as what does 'whosoever' refer to in John 3:16? And (according to atpollard) it turns out that 'whosoever' doesn't mean 'whosoever', it means the people 'who are doing what God wants.' I think it was mentioned in that thread that even though you are elect, if you choose to ignore God he might make life suck for you. I think I also read someone who said something like "if you continue behaving terribly before God he'll just unelect you." But now I can't find it, so I might be wrong. The main takeaway I got from the thread is that if you're elect then god will flip your mind around and make you want him. So I guess you'll end up being divinely lobotomized for Jesus if you don't give yourself over freely.

 

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. God will "unelect" someone? But then unelecting that someone would have to have been predestined or none of this is predestined. God had to have already played out every move, apriori, with full knowledge of all possible outcomes (like Dr. Strange).

 

No surprises, no changes in plan, nothing could be the result of a shift in the master plan that was unexpected by god in any way. And yet, they keep losing track of where they're at, what their claims are, and drifting mentally back towards this being based on choices - against the thrust of their own belief system. It's unfolding much that way that I figured it would. 

 

Taking TABA's example, they can't say at all whether god has marked him elect despite his confessions of atheism. For all they know, it's all part of the master plan. Like Vadar going to the dark side, killing off dam near all the Jedi, but then still fulfilling the prophecy of bringing balance to the force anyways by tossing Palpatine down the power shaft, making The Return of the Jedi. Anyone who would have taunted him along the way would have been dead wrong about Vadar and his true purpose to bring balance to the force.  Or like Saul killing christians or anything similar. 

 

I don't know what else to do at this point, aside from analyzing fiction against fiction. And checking both for internal consistency. 

 

11 hours ago, midniterider said:

How bout a Calvinism thread? I'll start one. 

 

Yes, do the honors. @DestinyTurtle needs notified of the thread. 

 

 

[midniterider]

33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Well now, not long after I posted this look what popped up as the current last page of the christforums discussion: https://www.christforums.com/forums/topic/24177-is-it-possible-to-fall-away-from-the-faith-and-lose-salvation/page/8/

 

A former bomb making terrorist, followed by our friend william trying to game for his bullet in the mouth testimony right behind it. Picture of bullet for full effect. And Becky cheer leading behind them....

 

 

 

Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. God will "unelect" someone? But then unelecting that someone would have to have been predestined or none of this is predestined. God had to have already played out every move, apriori, with full knowledge of all possible outcomes (like Dr. Strange).

 

No surprises, no changes in plan, nothing could be the result of a shift in the master plan that was unexpected by god in any way. And yet, they keep losing track of where they're at, what their claims are, and drifting mentally back towards this being based on choices - against the thrust of their own belief system. It's unfolding much that way that I figured it would. 

 

Taking TABA's example, they can't say at all whether god has marked him elect despite his confessions of atheism. For all they know, it's all part of the master plan. Like Vadar going to the dark side, killing off dam near all the Jedi, but then still fulfilling the prophecy of bringing balance to the force anyways by tossing Palpatine down the power shaft, making The Return of the Jedi. Anyone who would have taunted him along the way would have been dead wrong about Vadar and his true purpose to bring balance to the force.  Or like Saul killing christians or anything similar. 

 

I don't know what else to do at this point, aside from analyzing fiction against fiction. And checking both for internal consistency. 

 

 

Yes, do the honors. @DestinyTurtle needs notified of the thread. 

 

 

 

Advising the Turtle.