The tower of Babel

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

 

We both posted at the same time.

Thank you for doing that.  Sincerely.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

20 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're just in different position DB.  You profess X while still not understanding spirit, love, etc..  How does that not make you equally delusional.

Edgarcito,

 

You didn't answer my question. Why do you think I don't understand about love? Or spirit? Because I'm an exchristian. Because of the God being evil comments? What makes you think I don't understand spirit or love. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

My only skepticism was your post asking me to select just one of the above Walter.  This is partly why I distrust.  Our last conversation was rather pleasant.  This one, seemingly, you are trying to manipulate.  And again, you are attempting to discuss rational without appropriate data....but please continue.

 

I'm sorry that it comes over that way, Ed.

 

However, when one becomes a sceptic, the option of just believing what you are told is true or having faith in something without evidence becomes untenable.  Scepticism cannot coexist with faith or belief unsupported by evidence.  One cannot simultaneously be sceptical of something and also believe it is true.  Can you see how this is impossible?

 

It was my hope that you would see and understand this if I outlined why, as a sceptic, certain options were closed to you.  For example, if it's impossible for you to be disbelieve and believe something at the same time then it must also be impossible for you to disbelieve and believe aik's evidence-free, unsupported claims at the same time. 

 

Which should lead you to be sceptical of anything aik claims that isn't supported by independent objective evidence.

 

Of the four options I presented to you Ed, you should be able to see that three are closed off to you on account of your scepticism.   For the very same reason we discussed a while back.  The appropriate response to totally personal subjectivity is total scepticism.  No religion or belief is favoured over any other.  Which means that scepticism should be your default position on all matters of religion, theology and faith.  

 

Which should lead you to be sceptical of anything aik claims that is not supported by independent objective evidence.

 

 

Forgive me if I was pushing too hard or channelling you to see things in a certain way.  So, why don't you use as many options as you like or combinations thereof?  Then we can examine each one to see if they are consistent with your new position of scepticism.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

About rationality and appropriate data, Edgarcito...

 

 

I hope that you will see that appropriate data equals evidence.  If I make claims but do not support them with any evidence at all then you have no appropriate data with which to judge the truth or falsehood of my claims.  And you should therefore be wary and sceptical of my claims.

 

If I make a claim based upon my feelings you have no appropriate data with which to judge my claim.  What I feel is private, subjective and relevant only to me.  I can tell you about my feelings but you can never feel what I feel as I feel it.  This leaves you without any appropriate data.  Therefore you should be sceptical of my feeling-based claim.

 

The exact same logic applies if I make a claim based upon my faith.  My faith is private, subjective and relevant only to me.  It therefore gives you no appropriate data to go on and so you should be sceptical of my faith-based claim.

 

If I make a claim about my life and my family, unless you can meet me and witness these things for yourself, then once again you have no appropriate data and you should be rightly sceptical of my claim.

 

So, my feelings, my faith and the details of my life do not qualify as appropriate data because of a lack of evidence.

 

I won't say any more yet Edgarcito, because I've run a lot of things past you today and it's only right and proper that I give you time and space to consider them and get back to me.  We may agree to a certain point or you may disagree with everything I've written.  Either way, that's fine.  We can talk, discuss, compare, etc.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[aik]

On 12/5/2022 at 1:21 AM, TABA said:

Aik, the man’s desire to make restitution is good and noble, but such behavior is not confined to christians or even theists.  Humans are social creatures, and wanting to right wrongs  - including wrongs we have done to others - is a common trait.  We are fearfully and wonderfully evolved.  
 

When I was a christian I had a strong sense of personal honesty.  If I received too much change when paying for stuff in a shop, I would always point it out.  I have that same commitment to honesty now as an atheist, even though I don’t believe any god is watching.  It’s part of my particular personality, god or no god.  There are honest and dishonest christians, just as there are honest and dishonest muslims and atheists.  

Taba, when I was not a Christian I had a period when I was honest, just like you described about yourself. Than circumstances changed and I had to change my views on it. It happened because of circumstances changed. But you say that there honest and dishonest christians. People are sinful anyway. We are changeable. But the one who never changes it is Jesus. He did not change his holiness because of the circumstances. 

 

I am saying, that even when we see we have good part in our actions we should also see our bad part, to come to a true conclusion. If we see our bad part, then the Bible calls it as a sin or consequence of the sin. In the world it is called maybe imperfectness, wrong doing, special feature, view on life, lifestyle, way of thinking. There are many words. 

 

My point is that at first we should acknowledge that everyone in the world is a sinner. 

 

Constructors of the Babel tower were also sinners at there point. 

[aik]

On 12/5/2022 at 1:23 AM, DarkBishop said:

Right, so it wasn't the Holy Ghost telling him he needed to return it. He felt that way because he was a believer. Like any good believer should feel if they truly believe the Bible. 

 

But because the Bible says that. Just like when you talked about your wife deciding to dress more modestly. The believer interprets that the Holy Ghost is telling them it is wrong because they feel guilty about it. The Bible causes the guilt in the believer by what it says is sin. Then the guilt is assumed to be the Holy Ghost. It is just feelings. And feelings do not have to be based on truth. As we have already discussed. 

 

DB

It was the Holy Ghost. It is written that the Holy Spirit will com to rebuke or reprove the world for sin, righteousness and judge. 

 

So if one reads the bible hundreds of times but the Holy Spirit does not affect on the reader, so he will stay in his son's and will never be able to be saved. 

 

If a Christian is sinning it is not the problem of the bible, it is the problem of the christian's faith. @TABA

[aik]

On 12/3/2022 at 7:04 AM, DarkBishop said:

Aik,

 

We believe that it takes courage to leave the faith. A lot of people are heavily indoctrinated like you are. And even when they see the evidence and accept that the Bible is probably not what they once thought it was. There may still be a lot of fear. Fear of hell, fear of losing friends or family, fear of being an outcast, fear of abandonment. To face all that and still say I do not believe. That takes courage.

 

Do you understand empathy? I'm sure you do, but maybe it is something different in your language. Here is a definition.

 

em·pa·thy

/ˈempəTHē/

noun

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

 

This is an ExChristian website. And I would like you to try to understand our feelings. The term I use is putting yourself in someone else's shoes. 

 

Consider how much you love and cherish Jesus. 

 

Many of us also loved and cherished Jesus.

 

Consider how much you love his Bible.

 

We also loved the bible.

 

Consider how much you love your church and church family.

 

We also had church family that we loved, that we saw atleast a couple times per week. We had meals with them. Developed friendships. Ministered to them. Sat beside them at their death beds in some cases. 

 

Consider your whole Christian  life and how much you love it. 

 

Now think about us. Here in this forum. 

 

We had all of that AIK. Yet we lost our faith for a various multitude of different reasons. And we come here after discovering that it was all a lie. Sometimes in an instant our whole lives are turned upside down. Some of us that realize the truth, have tried to keep going to church just so we wouldn't lose those we loved. 

 

AIK,

I told you how I lost one of my wives. After that, I married the woman I'm with now. But now we aren't married. We had troubles in the past, sure. We were married 12 years. When we got married I had been a preacher in the Baptist church for several years and had just converted to a holiness Christian church, where I was on trial to become a bishop. 

 

Our lives were built around our faith. When I deconverted our relationship took a heavy toll. She suddenly felt like she was married to a stranger. And in a lot of ways she was. We tried to make it work. But eventually divorced. But even now we are still trying to make it work. And we still love each other. Honestly I don't know if it will work. Our Outlook doesn't always look very good.

 

There are many such stories here. Sometimes a spouse will come here for advise. They have deconverted but haven't told their husband or wife who is still a believer. 

 

We know how that feels. We know how hard that is. We can have empathy toward them. And that is what I'm asking you to do right now. Think about your beautiful Christian life and suddenly that is gone. You no longer have a Holy father to pray to or a saviour brother named Jesus Christ. All of that is gone now. 

 

How would you feel if you knew you had lost Jesus. And don't say. "I can never lose Jesus". Believe me at one time i felt the same way. I'm just asking you to imagine how you would feel if you did lose Jesus. 

 

So for us to have our whole lives built around faith. And then openly deconvert is a very courageous thing. Walking in our shoes is not for the cowardly. We are risking everything we love and hold dear just to live our truth. This isn't something any of us took lightly. I've told you my story. I tried to find answers through my elders. I did what the Bible said to do. And the answers weren't there. I eventually had to accept that I had been wrong and the bible was too. 

 

So please, have a little bit of empathy when you are talking to us and don't tell us we are cowards for not bowing down to pray and ask forgiveness from something that doesn't even exist. We are no longer in bondage to sin and are no longer slaves to your God. 

 

Thanks,

 

Dark Bishop

What was the difference between the Baptist church and the holiness church where you were? 

[aik]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:35 PM, DarkBishop said:

 

Do you understand what you are doing here AIK?

 

Basically you praise God for all the knowledge that mankind has accumulated over the past 500 or so years that have advanced the human species to where we are today. And you accept all of those findings to be true and profitable to the human race, and even claim that God gave us that knowledge. Unless it contradicts what you believe.

 

Think about all the different things we've shown you since you've been here. Many many different things contradict what the Bible says. 

 

It isn't that you just turn a blind eye to the dating scientist use. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to contradictions within the Bible

 

You've turned a blind eye to the physical impossiblity of a tower to heaven. 

 

You have turned a blind eye to the fact that they already know how languages developed over time separately from one another. There is no evidence that languages changed in an instant. They were developed over time. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to a flat earth creation with alleged water above our atmosphere. Which we know does not exist. And we know that our earth, along with all other planets are spherical. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to Gods neglect toward his children Adam and eve. Allowing them to be deceived by the serpent. 

 

You've turned a blind eye to much much more. To much for me to list.

 

It is easy to turn a blind eye to one or two things. But you have decided not to accept anything that doesn't align with your faith. And we have only just begun to show you the many many ways that the Bible fails. 

 

It isn't a problem with science AIK. They aren't trying to attack your faith. They are trying to discover the truth about the earths history. And your faith has one thing in common with all other faiths. They do not reflect the evidence that has been discovered. Your Bible is no more accurate than Muhammad's Quran, Greek mythology, or Norse mythology. It is all myth written by ancient people who had no way to understand the earth or how life started and survived on earth. They had no knowledge of volcanic activity or why swarms of locusts sometimes destroyed crops. It was all attributed to the actions of one God or another. 

 

But don't worry AIK. We will keep discussing these things. Maybe one day your eyes will be opened and you can see the truth. 

 

DB

As I see your answer you did not answer to my arguments that were aimed to show how imperfect can be some conclusions and outcome of archaeologists. I mean the same critics you use against the bible I use it against archeologists. 

 

 

But in no way I am trying to say that archeology does not deserve attention or trust. But we should use equal criteria.

 

It was about turning my blind eye toward dating of the scientist. So please answer to my arguments.

 

Contradictions in the Bible. We had not talked yet about contradictions in the bible as a topic, but touched a little for the case of our topic here. 

 

You said I turned blind eye to possibility of construction of the tower to heaven. But it is not true. I said that I think also it is impossible. The people there did not know maybe. But anyway they were doing wrong thing. 

 

They had one language. They could not know much about development of a language because they lived close together. Relatively close. When people continue live in one area it takes hundreds and even thousand years for the language to be changed. If of course any external situation had not caused it.

Scientifically all languages come from one common language. Saying scientifically it is a relative term. Because it is reconstruction of the oldest language based on some criteria of the current languages history. So it is similar to reconstruction of the scientists about cosmic rays origin.

But scientists are sure that there was one language at first which gave birth to ancient Sanskrit or Arian language. 

 

What refers to your flat earth fairy tale, I think I answered that. But anyway, it was a picture in your head, I guess, which hase come out with a share of prejudice, and some ignorance of what the fathers of the church said about it. 

 

We already spoke about Adam and eve. But I think we will continue then. Yes, the were allowed to their own choice. It was required for defeating the satan. Because it is impossible to defeat the Satan, when a man is a slave instead being free. 

 

Much much more? I do not understand this.

 

Well, the scientists have prejudice. I have it also in some case. But let us put it on fair scales. 

 

Dear Bishop. Let us not forget about the topic here. I guess it was my fault that we went aside from the topic here. Because I paid much attention to Walter's provocative claims. But I think he is a good Englishman, maybe not English as I me not a russian. Anyway we went astray. Let us come back to the core of the topic, and continue and not letting others make confusions here. 

 

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

20 hours ago, aik said:

Why do you say that I am delusional?

...

I have observed your writing here at Ex-C and have come to believe you are delusional.

 

20 hours ago, aik said:

...

Explain me please.

...

 

No.  I strongly suspect it would be a waste of time.

 

20 hours ago, aik said:

...

I mean How these two sentences brought you to such a conclusion?

...

I formed my belief that you are delusional based, in part, on those two sentences.  You have written many many more, some of which also indicate delusional thinking. 

 

20 hours ago, aik said:

...

Also can you explain with your own words what you mean saying delusiona? in other words

I can, but I will not.  Again, I strongly suspect it would be a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 hours ago, aik said:

As I see your answer you did not answer to my arguments that were aimed to show how imperfect can be some conclusions and outcome of archaeologists. I mean the same critics you use against the bible I use it against archeologists. 

 

Your right, I apologize I thought I included my thoughts on your assessment of the article. I will give it to you now. 

 

All you did was point out the flaws that they admitted to. I read the same article you did. And I assumed that you would try to point to those flaws because you have nothing else. 

 

The problem with your logic is that every sample that archeologists have taken for anything that is older than 7,000 years old would have to be flawed for young earth creation to be true. But that isn't the case. I couldn't tell you how many samples have been dated through the years. But archeologist don't search for biblical artifacts only. They are digging up fossils from when life began on earth. All the way up to artifacts in recent recorded history. Many of the native American Indian sites here in America are older than the bible says the earth is. I'm going to assume that millions of fossils and artifacts have been dated in these various ways. And while a bad sample can affect the accuracy of the date. It is silly to think that out of everything that has ever been dated that anything that was dated over 7,000 years old or so isn't accurate. 

 

The bottom line is that the earth is, without a shadow of a doubt, older than what the Bible says. 

 

10 hours ago, aik said:

You said I turned blind eye to possibility of construction of the tower to heaven. But it is not true. I said that I think also it is impossible. The people there did not know maybe. But anyway they were doing wrong thing. 

Ok, then please tell me. Is the biblical God stupid? You and I both know that the tower would not have been able to make it to heaven. But this is what God said. 

 

"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

 

I will copy this in NKJV as well. So it is in plain English. 

 

"And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them"

 

In the bible, the only thing they were guilty of was having one language and God said that because of that nothing will be restrained from them. This God thought they could build this tower. Yet you and I both know it wasn't possible. Maybe the biblical God should take a couple of physics classes. What do you think?

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

They had one language. They could not know much about development of a language because they lived close together. Relatively close. When people continue live in one area it takes hundreds and even thousand years for the language to be changed. If of course any external situation had not caused it.

Scientifically all languages come from one common language. Saying scientifically it is a relative term. Because it is reconstruction of the oldest language based on some criteria of the current languages history. So it is similar to reconstruction of the scientists about cosmic rays origin.

But scientists are sure that there was one language at first which gave birth to ancient Sanskrit or Arian language. 

Could you please provide an article with this objective evidence? I would like to see where you are drawing your information from.

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

What refers to your flat earth fairy tale, I think I answered that. But anyway, it was a picture in your head, I guess, which hase come out with a share of prejudice, and some ignorance of what the fathers of the church said about it. 

I want to address what you said hear in the bold letters and something you told @Hierophant on his thread. 

 

You said this:

 

"DarkBishop here "proved" to us that the Bible teaches us about a flat earth. But I do not know a church teaching such things. 

 

Do you admit that it looks like a flat earth creation is depicted in the scripture? Possibly because of the ignorance of the fathers of the church?

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

Yes, the were allowed to their own choice. It was required for defeating the satan. Because it is impossible to defeat the Satan, when a man is a slave instead being free. 

So you believe God gives humans free will?

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

Much much more? I do not understand this.

We have all been showing you flaws with the Bible since you arrived. Yet you have turned a blind eye to almost all of it. That is what I meant by much, much, more. I can't go through the threads and write down everything everyone has said to you. So I just said much, much, more. 

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

Well, the scientists have prejudice. I have it also in some case. But let us put it on fair scales. 

 

Thank you for admitting you have prejudice. We all do. Obviously your in an ExChristian forum. So our prejudices are against the bible. But we have also found a lot of objective evidences to support our change in belief. Your claim is that the subjective evidence in the bible is more true and absolute than our objective evidence. 

 

11 hours ago, aik said:

Dear Bishop. Let us not forget about the topic here. I guess it was my fault that we went aside from the topic here. Because I paid much attention to Walter's provocative claims. But I think he is a good Englishman, maybe not English as I me not a russian. Anyway we went astray. Let us come back to the core of the topic, and continue and not letting others make confusions here. 

 

It is ok. I said to start with we could go on all the rabbit trails we wanted to on this thread. I just didn't want to take away from you conversation with Heirophant. I find that even if we go off topic we will eventually come back to the original discussion. And if we get to far off we can always move to another thread. I don't think that is necessary yet. We are still talking about the tower of babel and development of languages. Along with a little bit about creation. 

 

I hope you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am. I'm glad you came here AIK. If you ever deconvert you will make a fine ExChristian one day  You remind me a lot of how I was when I was at the height of my zeal for the lord. I probably would have been considered delusional as well.  Between talking to You and Edgarcito I've discovered that I like reading the bible again. Granted I look at it differently now. But still, it has been great looking up scriptures and seeing them with new eyes. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

 

[aik]

24 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Your right, I apologize I thought I included my thoughts on your assessment of the article. I will give it to you now. 

 

All you did was point out the flaws that they admitted to. I read the same article you did. And I assumed that you would try to point to those flaws because you have nothing else. 

 

The problem with your logic is that every sample that archeologists have taken for anything that is older than 7,000 years old would have to be flawed for young earth creation to be true. But that isn't the case. I couldn't tell you how many samples have been dated through the years. But archeologist don't search for biblical artifacts only. They are digging up fossils from when life began on earth. All the way up to artifacts in recent recorded history. Many of the native American Indian sites here in America are older than the bible says the earth is. I'm going to assume that millions of fossils and artifacts have been dated in these various ways. And while a bad sample can affect the accuracy of the date. It is silly to think that out of everything that has ever been dated that anything that was dated over 7,000 years old or so isn't accurate. 

 

The bottom line is that the earth is, without a shadow of a doubt, older than what the Bible says. 

 

Ok, then please tell me. Is the biblical God stupid? You and I both know that the tower would not have been able to make it to heaven. But this is what God said. 

 

"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

 

I will copy this in NKJV as well. So it is in plain English. 

 

"And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them"

 

In the bible, the only thing they were guilty of was having one language and God said that because of that nothing will be restrained from them. This God thought they could build this tower. Yet you and I both know it wasn't possible. Maybe the biblical God should take a couple of physics classes. What do you think?

 

Could you please provide an article with this objective evidence? I would like to see where you are drawing your information from.

 

I want to address what you said hear in the bold letters and something you told @Hierophant on his thread. 

 

You said this:

 

"DarkBishop here "proved" to us that the Bible teaches us about a flat earth. But I do not know a church teaching such things. 

 

Do you admit that it looks like a flat earth creation is depicted in the scripture? Possibly because of the ignorance of the fathers of the church?

 

So you believe God gives humans free will?

 

We have all been showing you flaws with the Bible since you arrived. Yet you have turned a blind eye to almost all of it. That is what I meant by much, much, more. I can't go through the threads and write down everything everyone has said to you. So I just said much, much, more. 

 

 

Thank you for admitting you have prejudice. We all do. Obviously your in an ExChristian forum. So our prejudices are against the bible. But we have also found a lot of objective evidences to support our change in belief. Your claim is that the subjective evidence in the bible is more true and absolute than our objective evidence. 

 

 

It is ok. I said to start with we could go on all the rabbit trails we wanted to on this thread. I just didn't want to take away from you conversation with Heirophant. I find that even if we go off topic we will eventually come back to the original discussion. And if we get to far off we can always move to another thread. I don't think that is necessary yet. We are still talking about the tower of babel and development of languages. Along with a little bit about creation. 

 

I hope you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am. I'm glad you came here AIK. If you ever deconvert you will make a fine ExChristian one day  You remind me a lot of how I was when I was at the height of my zeal for the lord. I probably would have been considered delusional as well.  Between talking to You and Edgarcito I've discovered that I like reading the bible again. Granted I look at it differently now. But still, it has been great looking up scriptures and seeing them with new eyes. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

 

Dear Bishop, thank you for your answer. I am going to reply later.

 

I also enjoy of our conversation. I like it and it is a good war for me which I am doing here but not by myself, I am nobody, the power and the glory is to Jesus only. So let us say that He is fighting for your liberation from this place using us, me and @Edgarcito. I believe it is not your place to stay here. 

 

What refers to deconversion. If my faith was based on objective scientific tangable evidences, then I would leave Jesus Christ. But my faith is in no way based upon such things. So it has nothing to do with what the warld has. That is why I am with Jesus up till now. Jesus said You will have rejoice which nobody will be able to take it from you. I trust Him.

 

You gave me a very good answer. I have something to say to it. When I take time I will do it, my friend. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 hours ago, aik said:

What was the difference between the Baptist church and the holiness church where you were? 

Well.... there is a lot. And we will have to go over a lot of scripture to show why they believe the various things they believed, for you to really understand the differences and why there are those differences. And I would love to do that. So I will start a new thread and we can talk about that.

 

But I would also like to know what the beliefs are in your church as well and how they differ from what my old church believed. One of the things that has always peaked my interest is why another church was different than mine.

 

Is that fair? 

 

DB

[aik]

6 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Well.... there is a lot. And we will have to go over a lot of scripture to show why they believe the various things they believed, for you to really understand the differences and why there are those differences. And I would love to do that. So I will start a new thread and we can talk about that.

 

But I would also like to know what the beliefs are in your church as well and how they differ from what my old church believed. One of the things that has always peaked my interest is why another church was different than mine.

 

Is that fair? 

 

DB

Sure it is. But i do not know what your old church believed. How can I say how they differ from each other then?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 minutes ago, aik said:

Sure it is. But i do not know what your old church believed. How can I say how they differ from each other then?

I will tell you what my churches believed and their differences first. Then you can tell me how your churches beliefs differ. It doesn't have to be about which church is right or wrong. Most churches are different in there own ways. We should probably do it by subject tho. I can tell you that most of the beliefs about sin and the process of salvation up to baptism are pretty much the same. That everyone is under sin from the fall of Adam.

(There are some big differences about how that fall took place in the garden. But I think going over the simple differences would be better for now. We can get to the big differences later in the thread)

 

What do you think about starting off taking about the differences in salvation and sin after baptism? Basically the Baptist churches i went to mostly believed in once saved always saved. And the Gospel assembly believed a Christian could lose salvation. 

 

Does that sound like an interesting subject to start on?

 

DB

[aik]

15 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I will tell you what my churches believed and their differences first. Then you can tell me how your churches beliefs differ. It doesn't have to be about which church is right or wrong. Most churches are different in there own ways. We should probably do it by subject tho. I can tell you that most of the beliefs about sin and the process of salvation up to baptism are pretty much the same. That everyone is under sin from the fall of Adam.

(There are some big differences about how that fall took place in the garden. But I think going over the simple differences would be better for now. We can get to the big differences later in the thread)

 

What do you think about starting off taking about the differences in salvation and sin after baptism? Basically the Baptist churches i went to mostly believed in once saved always saved. And the Gospel assembly believed a Christian could lose salvation. 

 

Does that sound like an interesting subject to start on?

 

DB

Well, it is an intersting topic for sure. But I believe that this topic is relevant only between believers. I have no reason to speak on what believers believe with the one who does not believe in any form of God and in Bible at all. That is why, we can discuss shortly about some reasons which cause divisions in churches and divisions in opinions and in faith. The purpose will be to show you that churches are also like a human organism, which is developing, amending, falling and rising. Saying churches I mean christian congregations on the earth. 

 

So I am ready to answer some questions about it, but I do not think it is a suitable topic for a separate thread. 

 

What refers to our church, so we also believe that a beliver can lose his salvation if he leaves faith and turns back to sins. As I see in America it is very clear division between calvinism and arianism. But here we do not have such I would say. Calvinism is not popular. So if we say calvinism then we should explain what we mean exactly to be clear. Here churches are orthodox, protestant, and small number of catholic. Protestants can be early and new protestants (evangelical). So we are some sort of Slavic Evangelical Church. I am careful with terms because your terms when we use here have different meanings I have noticed.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

50 minutes ago, aik said:

What refers to our church, so we also believe that a beliver can lose his salvation if he leaves faith and turns back to sins. As I see in America it is very clear division between calvinism and arianism. But here we do not have such I would say. Calvinism is not popular. So if we say calvinism then we should explain what we mean exactly to be clear. Here churches are orthodox, protestant, and small number of catholic. Protestants can be early and new protestants (evangelical). So we are some sort of Slavic Evangelical Church. I am careful with terms because your terms when we use here have different meanings I have noticed.

Yes I think our various churches may be very different. That is what makes it interesting to me. I will try to keep it simple on this thread then if you don't want to go into the details. Maybe I can figure out what scriptures they draw from just by knowing what the differences are. 

 

There are a lot of reasons the bible says things to different people and realize that none of it had nothing to do with God. But how the bible was created and evolved over time. 

 

I will be busy for awhile. But I will try to post more of the differences later. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

4 hours ago, aik said:

Well, it is an intersting topic for sure. But I believe that this topic is relevant only between believers.

 

This isn't true. I find it all very interesting. Especially when the differences are all supported by the same Bible. 

 

Since I've stopped believing I've been able to look into more about the bible and understand why there are those differences in theology and contradictions within the Bible. 

 

Scholars both Christian and secular both agree that there are some forgeries within the Bible. Most of them written in the name of the apostles

 

There were also atleast four different sources that added to and influenced Pentateuch according to scholars. All of these people influenced the bible to promote various religious and political agendas. 

 

I really wish you would read a few books I could suggest to you. But I don't think you would. Would you?

 

I will list the more notable differences. I won't waste time going over the scriptures to support them as you apparently don't care. 

 

The Baptist church probably believed more like you except for losing salvation. 

 

They believed that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. They believed in the flood as depicted in the bible, as well as the tower of babel narrative. They believe that we are all under sin and the only way to heaven is Repentence and forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. 

 

 

The gospel assembly had a lot of biblical apologetics woven into their teachings. 

 

They believed that when the world was first created that God made men and women (plural) and told them to subdue the earth. Then he created Adam and eve as his people. He gave them one commandment. And this was not to partake in the knowledge of good and evil. This commandment was only given to adam and eve. Not everyone else. When Adam and eve broke this commandment sin passed upon all men. 

 

They believe in full immersion baptism. In this both the Baptist church and gospel assembly agree. Sprinkling of water on someone was not what Jesus taught. 

 

The baptist have a trinitarian view about the father, son, and Holy ghost. They believe that all three are the same entity. This never made sense to me.

 

Which was one of the appeals to the gospel assembly. They believed the father, son, and Holy ghost were three separate beings but that they all were in one accord with each other. 

 

The baptists believe the soul goes straight to heaven or hell at the point of death. And that the saints will come back with Jesus when he returns. 

 

The gospel assembly believes the soul is asleep until Jesus returns. At which time he will call body and soul out of the grave together. This goes for both sinner and Saint. When this happens they believe this is when both the sheep and the goats will be gathered together to be judged. The goats to the left and sheep to the right. And each will inheret the reward that they deserve. Either heaven or hell in the lake fire.

 

Some baptists believe in the rapture and some don't. 

 

The gospel assembly strictly does not believe in the rapture.

 

The Baptist church is probably very similar to your own it sounds like. These are the most common differences I can mention without having to go into a lot of scripture. If you have questions about why they believe certain things I will show you where they get it in the bible.

 

DB

 

 

 

[Rev R]

6 hours ago, aik said:

I have no reason to speak on what believers believe with the one who does not believe in any form of God and in Bible at all.

um...you've been prattling on about what you, a believer, believe to non-believers for a few thousand words now.

[aik]

15 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

This isn't true. I find it all very interesting. Especially when the differences are all supported by the same Bible. 

 

Since I've stopped believing I've been able to look into more about the bible and understand why there are those differences in theology and contradictions within the Bible. 

 

Scholars both Christian and secular both agree that there are some forgeries within the Bible. Most of them written in the name of the apostles

 

There were also atleast four different sources that added to and influenced Pentateuch according to scholars. All of these people influenced the bible to promote various religious and political agendas. 

 

I really wish you would read a few books I could suggest to you. But I don't think you would. Would you?

 

I will list the more notable differences. I won't waste time going over the scriptures to support them as you apparently don't care. 

 

The Baptist church probably believed more like you except for losing salvation. 

 

They believed that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. They believed in the flood as depicted in the bible, as well as the tower of babel narrative. They believe that we are all under sin and the only way to heaven is Repentence and forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. 

 

 

The gospel assembly had a lot of biblical apologetics woven into their teachings. 

 

They believed that when the world was first created that God made men and women (plural) and told them to subdue the earth. Then he created Adam and eve as his people. He gave them one commandment. And this was not to partake in the knowledge of good and evil. This commandment was only given to adam and eve. Not everyone else. When Adam and eve broke this commandment sin passed upon all men. 

 

They believe in full immersion baptism. In this both the Baptist church and gospel assembly agree. Sprinkling of water on someone was not what Jesus taught. 

 

The baptist have a trinitarian view about the father, son, and Holy ghost. They believe that all three are the same entity. This never made sense to me.

 

Which was one of the appeals to the gospel assembly. They believed the father, son, and Holy ghost were three separate beings but that they all were in one accord with each other. 

 

The baptists believe the soul goes straight to heaven or hell at the point of death. And that the saints will come back with Jesus when he returns. 

 

The gospel assembly believes the soul is asleep until Jesus returns. At which time he will call body and soul out of the grave together. This goes for both sinner and Saint. When this happens they believe this is when both the sheep and the goats will be gathered together to be judged. The goats to the left and sheep to the right. And each will inheret the reward that they deserve. Either heaven or hell in the lake fire.

 

Some baptists believe in the rapture and some don't. 

 

The gospel assembly strictly does not believe in the rapture.

 

The Baptist church is probably very similar to your own it sounds like. These are the most common differences I can mention without having to go into a lot of scripture. If you have questions about why they believe certain things I will show you where they get it in the bible.

 

DB

 

 

 

This is the right place to put an interim question here. And your answer to that question will be a half answer of mine to this post. And another half I will give by myself. 

 

The question is the following: 

Do the athiests have disputes inspite of their relying on the objectiveness of the science? For example, not every athiest agree with darwinism. I heard athiests who deny this teaching. 

 

Not every athiests agree in their attitude to the issue of God's existence. Even here som people believe there can be some supernatural God thought not the biblical one, some deny existance of God at all. In the world there are agnostic athiests and there are strict athiests. 

 

Or I will give you another example. Isreael Finkelstein is an archeologist, and he excavates Levant the Holy Land and Megiddo. So he is quire nutral in his findings which confirm biblical stories. And as it happens often he has criticizers, such as William Dever, another well know archeologist, who says that Finkelstein's stories are fiction, and accuses him in some sort of idiosyncratism. On the other hand we have William Dever been criticed and accused for his neglects of actual facts and found artefacts which confirm biblical stories, and that Dever accuses biblical archeologists without giving any valuable evidence. So the same criticizers of Finkelstein at the same time criticize Dever. 

 

And it shows that if the science is like maths, so there should not be any disagreement. But if it is on its development stage, and it is not so perfect, so the results can be disputable. 

 

In addition to this take into account that scientists are people of various views of idiology and life. Everyone tries to defend his views. It means that the science is unable to clarify such disputes. 

 

Actually if i dig deeper, I am sure that there many disagreements among athiests and among scientists in general. 

 

But we do not deny science, we continue its studying, we also take into account that we do not know everything. I think everyone understands it. 

 

Or shall we stop studying the science just because it has so many ways of understanding things and even facts sometimes are powerless to correct the situation? 

 

15 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

If you have questions about why they believe certain things I will show you where they get it in the bible.

No, I understand the situation. 

 

A human, believer or not, has such a character, that he strives to prove his beliefs by all means. And often he has to stop developing just to confirm that his views are the most correct. We have such a character. It can be defeated only by denying self-glory I think.

[aik]

21 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Your right, I apologize I thought I included my thoughts on your assessment of the article. I will give it to you now. 

 

All you did was point out the flaws that they admitted to. I read the same article you did. And I assumed that you would try to point to those flaws because you have nothing else. 

 

The problem with your logic is that every sample that archeologists have taken for anything that is older than 7,000 years old would have to be flawed for young earth creation to be true. But that isn't the case. I couldn't tell you how many samples have been dated through the years. But archeologist don't search for biblical artifacts only. They are digging up fossils from when life began on earth. All the way up to artifacts in recent recorded history. Many of the native American Indian sites here in America are older than the bible says the earth is. I'm going to assume that millions of fossils and artifacts have been dated in these various ways. And while a bad sample can affect the accuracy of the date. It is silly to think that out of everything that has ever been dated that anything that was dated over 7,000 years old or so isn't accurate. 

 

The bottom line is that the earth is, without a shadow of a doubt, older than what the Bible says. 

 

Ok, then please tell me. Is the biblical God stupid? You and I both know that the tower would not have been able to make it to heaven. But this is what God said. 

 

"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

 

I will copy this in NKJV as well. So it is in plain English. 

 

"And the Lord said, "Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them"

 

In the bible, the only thing they were guilty of was having one language and God said that because of that nothing will be restrained from them. This God thought they could build this tower. Yet you and I both know it wasn't possible. Maybe the biblical God should take a couple of physics classes. What do you think?

 

Could you please provide an article with this objective evidence? I would like to see where you are drawing your information from.

 

I want to address what you said hear in the bold letters and something you told @Hierophant on his thread. 

 

You said this:

 

"DarkBishop here "proved" to us that the Bible teaches us about a flat earth. But I do not know a church teaching such things. 

 

Do you admit that it looks like a flat earth creation is depicted in the scripture? Possibly because of the ignorance of the fathers of the church?

 

So you believe God gives humans free will?

 

We have all been showing you flaws with the Bible since you arrived. Yet you have turned a blind eye to almost all of it. That is what I meant by much, much, more. I can't go through the threads and write down everything everyone has said to you. So I just said much, much, more. 

 

 

Thank you for admitting you have prejudice. We all do. Obviously your in an ExChristian forum. So our prejudices are against the bible. But we have also found a lot of objective evidences to support our change in belief. Your claim is that the subjective evidence in the bible is more true and absolute than our objective evidence. 

 

 

It is ok. I said to start with we could go on all the rabbit trails we wanted to on this thread. I just didn't want to take away from you conversation with Heirophant. I find that even if we go off topic we will eventually come back to the original discussion. And if we get to far off we can always move to another thread. I don't think that is necessary yet. We are still talking about the tower of babel and development of languages. Along with a little bit about creation. 

 

I hope you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am. I'm glad you came here AIK. If you ever deconvert you will make a fine ExChristian one day  You remind me a lot of how I was when I was at the height of my zeal for the lord. I probably would have been considered delusional as well.  Between talking to You and Edgarcito I've discovered that I like reading the bible again. Granted I look at it differently now. But still, it has been great looking up scriptures and seeing them with new eyes. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

 

I keep this in my mind. I will refer to this post later.

 

But now just a small reminder. I asked you twice, How did the archeologists come to the conclusion that the first human beings were gathering and hunting only? I cannot find your answer to this question against your claim. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, aik said:

I keep this in my mind. I will refer to this post later.

 

But now just a small reminder. I asked you twice, How did the archeologists come to the conclusion that the first human beings were gathering and hunting only? I cannot find your answer to this question against your claim. 

Here is a link for your own reference. If you need more, just Google it. You guys do have Google right?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

 

I thought it was implied and you had a basic understanding of how archeology worked. They have discovered a multitude of hunter/gatherer sites across the world. They know that this was our way of life before our most recent stage in evolution. We are homosapiens and they have found hunter/gstherer communities all the way back to homoerectus. They find these sites and excavate the human remains and artifacts that were left behind by us and our primitive ancestors. 

 

This is a big reason I know the bible isn't true. We have the fossil record to prove that we evolved from a more primitive species. Homoerectus. When the earliest homosapien fossils were found they weren't farming. They were hunting and foraging for their food. They can tell by the tools they used. The way they stored their food. What food was left behind. Etc. 

 

I am not an archeologist so I can't give you all the answers of how they came to know this. But these communities have been studied and excavated all over the earth. Again this isn't theory. It is fact. We have the evidence. At the very least we have the evidence to prove we weren't farming when we first appeared on earth. Nothing about what has been uncovered by excavating ancient human civilizations prior to roughly 12,000 years ago shows that we were farming. 

 

Yet in the bible when humans first appear on earth they are expected to farm for their food. 

 

That just isn't the reality of the world Aik. History isn't with you. The writers of the Bible were under the assumption that humans had always farmed. So when they wrote the creation story they included farming as part of the myth. Whichbmakes sense because the Bible doesn't even date the world to be older than roughly 7,000 years. They had been farming for 3,000-5,000 years by the timeline of the Bible.

 

Recorded history (meaning when humans began to make written language) has only been for the past 5,000 years. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history#:~:text=Ancient history is a time,with the Sumerian cuneiform script.

 

The oldest biblical texts found are another 2,000 - 3,000 years younger than the start of recorded history. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#:~:text=over 125 years.-,Earliest extant manuscripts,half of the 2nd century.

 

Everything that has ever been discovered relating to the Bible was after people began to farm. The writers of the Bible had no idea how humans lived prior to the Neolithic revolution when we began to farm our food. And the bible reflects that. 

 

Aik if you choose to ignore a massive amount of evidence that we were hunter/gatherers for millions of years, thats fine. But please don't ask me to. I can't turn a blind eye to that much evidence. 

 

And I'm not going to entertain the idea that out of all the artifacts that have ever been tested at these sites. That every one of them were flawed and couldn't be dated correctly. That would be ridiculous. 

 

DB

[aik]

45 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

much evidence

evidences? 

 

Man,  let us together enter into your link of hunter-gatherers. Read the topic "Archeological evidences", and please, be honest. I can see here a fantastic and very interesting story, but where are the evidences? Could you find one objective evidence here? 

 

You can call your friends if you want. 

[aik]

53 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Here is a link for your own reference. If you need more, just Google it. You guys do have Google right?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

 

I thought it was implied and you had a basic understanding of how archeology worked. They have discovered a multitude of hunter/gatherer sites across the world. They know that this was our way of life before our most recent stage in evolution. We are homosapiens and they have found hunter/gstherer communities all the way back to homoerectus. They find these sites and excavate the human remains and artifacts that were left behind by us and our primitive ancestors. 

 

This is a big reason I know the bible isn't true. We have the fossil record to prove that we evolved from a more primitive species. Homoerectus. When the earliest homosapien fossils were found they weren't farming. They were hunting and foraging for their food. They can tell by the tools they used. The way they stored their food. What food was left behind. Etc. 

 

I am not an archeologist so I can't give you all the answers of how they came to know this. But these communities have been studied and excavated all over the earth. Again this isn't theory. It is fact. We have the evidence. At the very least we have the evidence to prove we weren't farming when we first appeared on earth. Nothing about what has been uncovered by excavating ancient human civilizations prior to roughly 12,000 years ago shows that we were farming. 

 

Yet in the bible when humans first appear on earth they are expected to farm for their food. 

 

That just isn't the reality of the world Aik. History isn't with you. The writers of the Bible were under the assumption that humans had always farmed. So when they wrote the creation story they included farming as part of the myth. Whichbmakes sense because the Bible doesn't even date the world to be older than roughly 7,000 years. They had been farming for 3,000-5,000 years by the timeline of the Bible.

 

Recorded history (meaning when humans began to make written language) has only been for the past 5,000 years. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history#:~:text=Ancient history is a time,with the Sumerian cuneiform script.

 

The oldest biblical texts found are another 2,000 - 3,000 years younger than the start of recorded history. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#:~:text=over 125 years.-,Earliest extant manuscripts,half of the 2nd century.

 

Everything that has ever been discovered relating to the Bible was after people began to farm. The writers of the Bible had no idea how humans lived prior to the Neolithic revolution when we began to farm our food. And the bible reflects that. 

 

Aik if you choose to ignore a massive amount of evidence that we were hunter/gatherers for millions of years, thats fine. But please don't ask me to. I can't turn a blind eye to that much evidence. 

 

And I'm not going to entertain the idea that out of all the artifacts that have ever been tested at these sites. That every one of them were flawed and couldn't be dated correctly. That would be ridiculous. 

 

DB

Look what we have, and compare to what you have shown to me.

 

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

 

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the 𝔓52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.[citation needed]

25,000 manuscripts in hand.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

35 minutes ago, aik said:

evidences? 

 

Man,  let us together enter into your link of hunter-gatherers. Read the topic "Archeological evidences", and please, be honest. I can see here a fantastic and very interesting story, but where are the evidences? Could you find one objective evidence here? 

 

Yes you can find objective evidences. Why would you even doubt that there is objective evidence? I've seen objective evidence with my own eyes. They are displayed in museums. What do you think they are basing their information on? Do you not know how archeology works?  I thought you were an engineer? 

 

They carefully dig into the ground where they have found a site. They carefully document the artifacts they find and where they were found. Based on the type of artifacts found they can then date the site by the type of artifacts found and of course they do carbon dating as well. If you would like to see the objective evidence they found, go to a museum aik. There have been hunter/gatherer sites excavated in and around Russia im sure. 

 

Here is an article about a site in Iran that is 300,000 years old. With pictures of the artifacts. 

 

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/468785/Archaeologists-discover-300-000-year-old-relics-traces-of-hunter-gatherers

 

I told you already. I'm not an archeologist but I do respect their education and the occupation they have devoted their lives to. As I'm sure you expect people to respect you for the education you received and the work you do in your profession. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

11 minutes ago, aik said:

Look what we have, and compare to what you have shown to me.

 

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

 

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the 𝔓52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.[citation needed]

 

25,000 manuscripts in hand.

 

 

Aik, 

 

You do realize you just proved my point about the bible right? Did you happen to look at the oldest dates in those 25,000 fragmented manuscripts? The oldest is only 3,000 years old. 

 

9,000 years after people began farming. 

 

So what is your point?

 

Not only that. The Bible that you have today was pieced together using all those fragments. The woman caught in adultery wasn't even mentioned in the oldest copies of the same book. 

 

Your not helping your case here. But thank you for helping mine. 

 

DB