Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kuroikaze

Here Is Why I Don't Believe

Recommended Posts

Great... on the subject of lying and church fathers:

 

http://www.angelfire.com/band/kissed/fraud.html

Angustine of Hippo, the greatest figure in Christian antiquity, wrote: "It is lawful, then, to him that discusses, disputes and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed." Augustine, On Lying, c. 19

 

Eusebius, a 4th century Bishop and ecclesiastical historian, wrote that he unscrupulously suppressed all that would be a disgrace to early Christianity. Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, c.21.

 

Edward Gibbon confirms this. He writes: "The gravest of all the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that would tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict observation of the other." E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. 16 (1883).

 

None other than Paul of Tarsus admits of trickery (2 Cor. 12.16), imposture (1 Cor. 9.19-20), and deception. He wrote: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Romans 3.7 (King James Version)

 

Irenaeus (120-203 AD)

 

"Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.

Funny how the word "published" is used... but anyhow, scholars widely accept that "Matthew's" work was written between 80-100 C.E. That means it was written somewhere 10-40 years after the death of Peter and Paul, and not while they were preaching.

 

After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached;

"Mark's" Gospel is accepted as being written between 65-80 C.E. So i guess i can agree that it was written after Peter and Paul's departure, if by departure you mean they died.

 

There was no reason for "Mark" to write down what Peter preached considering there was a Gospel of Peter (70-160 C.E.), which was actually reguarded higher and used more than the other Gospels.

 

and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.

Recorded the Gospel which Paul declared? I dont remember Paul writing, or declaring, any stories, parables, and accounts of Jesus' life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kate,

 

You last post was very long. Can you first establish what it is you are trying to prove to us and we can take it from there.

 

Example:

 

1) I believe that the Bible is Gods word and this is what I mean by Gods word.

2) I believe it is his word because of a...b....c....d.....z

 

 

3) Because it is God word this is what I think you should all do.

4) If you don't do this then the following will happen to you.

 

 

At present you are all over the place with information - try and structure it as suggested above then we can have a good dialogue maybe :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks OM, I'm gonna look into that document.

 

Kat, the Bible itself points out redactions to the Jesus story in the time of the epistles. Read the Bible, Dear! It's there. Paul warns his church for those who changed the gospel, "The False Teachers". And this was in Paul's time!!! Which is before 68 AD! So less than 35 years and people have started to misunderstand the Gospel. If it can happen one way, it can happen the other way. So how do you know that Paul isn't the false prophet, and the ones he preached against were the true ones?

 

And OM, you know me, I'm not talking about deception, pious fraud or lying about the legend building around Jesus. :) Just if I overstep and don't express myself clear enough.

 

--edit--

(removed my comment about Strobel)

 

Kat, explain to me how the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the birth of Jesus (2nd time asking).

And while you're at it, explain how they witnessed Jesus' tempation in the desert, and what he said during prayer while they discpiles were sleeping, and the trial of Jesus when all of them had run away, and how the authors could have witnessed the empty tomb. And I could go on for quite some time, and open the Bible and find many segments where the author obviously were NOT an eyewitness, but got the information at the best from an eyewitness. Which isn't the same. Secondly the Gospels are not written in "I saw this, and then he talked to me, and I said, and then I walked to...", but "He did, he saw, he said, he walked..." it's a story told by an outside observer, outside the story, removed from the time and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Kat this guy you quote writes a lot but says little

 

First off, he has very poor knowlege of posible writting dates for the gospels.

 

Did you know that many historians think that the Gospel of Thomas was written much ealier? posibly as early as 40 or 50 A.D. There are some strong arguements for early dates. The inclusion of doubting Thomas was quite posibly an attack on some things said in his Gospel. Some have even suggested that Thomas might be related too or even an early form of the "Q" document.

 

The Gospel of Peter has a very wide date range any time between 70 and 160.

 

It is posible that the gnostic texts were written about the same time, or even before the synoptic gospels.

 

There is no proof that Acts was written before Paul's death...that it doesn't mention his death is only circumstancial. There are many reasons the writer may have chosen not to mention his death for the sake of narrative, or some point he was trying to make.

 

 

All of the church fathers he mentionons were 2nd century or later. People who were 3rd or 4th generation certainly had no more idea than we do about the authorship.

 

 

Likewise the dates of the biblical gospels are also debated. John for instance could have been written anytime up to as late as 120 but most scholars think it was written in several sections (probably 3) the first of which was written in around 70-80 and the last of which was finished around 100 or a little later. In fact we have copies of John that are incomplete. Some copies of the gospel omit the story of the woman caught in adultury...which only apears in the gospel. calling into authenticty the whole story....even if you believe Jesus IS real. The story was likely added in sometime in mid 2nd century.

 

the Synoptic Gospels get dated all over the place from 40 C.E. to 90 C.E. and unless we actually find "Q" it is unlikely that debate will ever get put to rest.

 

 

This guy is aperently only aware of, or is simply ignoring any scholarship that disagrees with his purpose which is of course, apologetics.

 

He makes many assumptions and self assertions that are not backed up by logic or the predomanant view of scholars.

 

Read some of the articles on Wikipedia about the NT book dates. I did a little reasearch there to refresh my memory from my college classes and found that they have some pretty exaustive articles on the topic.

 

Lastly you should note that the canon was argued over for hundreds of years, They first started hammering it out in the council of Nicea but the Council of Laodicea, 363, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and many other councils over the next 700 years would fight over what scriptures were canonical. Hell, even Martin Luther wanted to kick Jude, Revelation, and several other books out of the NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Kat, here's a quote from your long post:

First, no one was present when the stone was rolled away - certainly not Peter. The description of the stone rolling away must be from someone's imagination.

So, the Gospel of Peter is a false gospel because we can't believe Peter were an eyewitness to huge 10 feet giant Jesus. But we can however believe Matt/Mark/Luke/John to be an eyewitnesses, all of them, and see Mary Magdalene there, and one other woman, no a group of other women, and no angel, one angel, two angel, young man, Jesus, and no Jesus... Which way is it?

 

If one fabulous story can't be accepted, then the other can not either. Sorry. Where would the line be drawn for "unbelievable miracle" and "believable miracle"?

 

Jesus could definitely have been 10 feet tall giant, if God so wanted him to be so. Don't you agree? And the other 4 gospels have all different recollection of the resurrection, and you accept that. But you don't accept a 5th version? or a 6th? Is 4 the "magic" number, the max number of accepted differences?

 

--edit--

 

Kat, let's go with your posit that it takes 500 years to make a legend. Legend is very close to misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the true story right? So let's say no one can misrepresent the story for 500 years. So what should we do about the Gnostic texts from the 1st-3rd century? Since no one can misrepresent the story they must be true. We should according to your 500 year limit include all the gnostic gospels in the Bible, with immediate effect, since they are true representations of the truth. Don't you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..............

Honestly, I get kind of irritated when people try to say the bible isn't trustworthy just because there are contradictions. Some of those same people would also say the same thing if every book in the NT had none. But then their reason would be that "the disciples/translators got together to make sure they had their story straight. Therefore, the whole bible is in question due to collaboration." You just can't satisfy some because they are just bound and determined not to believe (again, I am not addressing everyone- maybe not even anyone- from this discussion).

..............

You won't get any argument from me on this point. In fact, I covered this same subject on this thread ===>Contradictions In The Bible.

 

If you don't care to read the thread, I basically said that I don't care if Christians DO manage to fix all biblical errors and contradictions. A more proficient editor doesn't make the Bible™ True, nor will that convince me to believe it.

 

So I get "irritated" when the subject comes up, also. It's pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh - well, seems like everyone's got the counter-attack well in order, so I only have one thing to add.

 

Kat, even if your god really exists (which I think he does) and is what he claims to be (which I don't think he is), why should I worship him, anyway? Why should I bend my knees to him based on threats of eternal damnation, especially when Babblical™ evidence suggests that all my loved ones and friends, as well as my non-Xian ancestors, will already be damned by him?

 

If I wouldn't submit to such oppressors in this world, why should I do so in the next, especially when it means turning my back on all my loved ones and a myriad of other good people? Especially when even the Babble™ suggests that Yahooweh™ and Jeezus™ are not the only "gods" that exist, why should I not throw in my lot with the Heathen gods and my loved ones and just ignore your immature spiritual tyrant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify my earlier post a bit, in a simplier fashion:

 

Kat, the interview you quoted actually supports my statement, that legends are created much faster than 500 years.

 

Read again, Gospel of Peter, written 130 AD, have embellished the story with additional legendary stuff, and hence is rejected by you and the Church just because it does so. That's 100 years only. Your professor indirectly admits that embellishments and making legends happens within 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this isn't exactly what was suggested but I hope this is better. I know I can be long winded but I am one person responding to quite a few.

 

1)Conceding where I should:

 

Honesty, looking at all of what you have to say I am seeing a pattern from both groups (me being one group and all of you being the other). What I see is that we can both quote from scholars and find scholars that agree with our point. That is of course, not including the speculations from both sides and emotional comments from both sides.

 

With that in mind, I am changing my angle from one of a fight to one of conceding where I should. After all, it is not open minded of me to continue opposing you without conceding where you have a point. So, here it goes.

 

I agree that there are many contradictions in the bible and that those contradictions can make it hard for one to know if the bible has anything worth while to read from it. I agree that, though (compared to other historical documents) the bible holds up very well in number and date of manuscripts, we do not have original documents and that makes it hard to know what was told in the beginning.

 

I agree that, taking out the emotional comments and speculation about Hebrew soldier attitudes, the story of the other side is well told. It brings up a valid point of "With what we know from the bible about this story, how can God be that cruel?" And I would not want to worship a God who would brutally kill innocent people without cause.

 

2)What next:

 

With that said, what am I left with? I can give you what I have seen in my life about God. Please do not insult me by saying I am trying to make this all about me. Sometimes all one can do is go based off of their experience to find the truth. I know some people might mock me in different ways; making light of my experience. That's fine... it is still my story and no one can tell me that is a lie.

 

3)Let's start with the fact that, unlike what you may think, my life hasn't been all blessings....

 

My parents were divorced the day after my 6th birthday. I moved so often (no, not because of the military) that I had no social skills and was an outcast as a child. To the point of having someone who would spit thick globs of mucus in my hair often. I would nearly throw up every time I had to wash it out in the school bathroom because this boy didn’t brush his teeth.

 

I was molested by my father when I was 12 and violated even worse by a close friend of the family when I was 14. I have been verbally and physically abused and had all the emotional baggage that comes with this list. I had an addiction to food (yeah, that may seem silly to some) that was so bad I would eat until I hurt then turn around and eat again. I even had a system to my eating so I didn't have to stop due to overload on sugar or salt; I would switch back and forth between the two. At my heaviest, I was 220 ( I am down to 190 now and still losing).

 

I had a hard time getting close to my husband because of the baggage from when I was younger and he felt rejected because of it. A few years ago, he decided a woman at work was giving him more attention than me and started flirting with her and not coming home till around 1 am. I would wish that he was in an accident because, at least then, I would know he wasn't with her. Then I started looking elsewhere and was so ashamed by my actions, and all the people I hurt, that I ended up in the hospital after getting completely sloshed and chucking an entire container of sleeping pills.

 

That's just the stuff off the top of my head.

 

4)And where was God when all this was happening?

 

Why did He not save me? Why did He not save my little sister who died only 2 weeks after she was born? Why didn't he save my mother from the heartache of that and the 2 miscarriages that she had before?

 

Well, this is what I have seen. He was gently whispering to me and saying He was there for me to get me through it. He was guiding me and loving me until the day I found Him. Did my pain stop once I found Him? No. Some of that stuff didn't happen until AFTER I found Him... including my attempted suicide. But I wasn't listening to Him either. I was trying to do things my way and didn't know what the heck I was doing. So the pain caught up with me and I lost it. Trying to pull my own hair out and beating my head against a wall (literally) before I finally tossed back the pills.

 

But He was patient and He waited... and whispered and loved. Till I finally gave in and started to listen. Listen to what? The words in His precious book. Coincidentally (no I do not believe in coincidences that big) a group was pointed out to me at the very time I was finally ready for it. And, again, there was someone (in a very small group) who was in EXACTLY my shoes only worse and she had come farther. And I submitted to the love and words of Christ. Call it slavery if you want, I call it listening to someone who knows more than me and doing what they say is best.

 

Am I sorry for anything I have been through? Would I change anything that was ever done to me? No. because of what I have been through, I can sympathize and advise others. Help people who have been through hell and just want to die. And I have done so. If I had not been through that hell, I would not be able to help others the way I can now. I would not be motivated to learn more about God's word.

 

5)Now where am I?

 

I have stayed faithful and have seen prayer after prayer answered and, the more I submit (to Him, not the Church), the more I grow in strength and love for others. The more I am blessed and the more my family and marriage is blessed (still married to the same guy and things are nothing like they were). Did we have anything to do with those changes? Yes. We let Him in and now He flows out. And people stop.... and they wonder. And they tell me that there is something different about me. People that barely know me want to say that I seem to have something special... that I am different than most people they meet. These are not people that are all Christian; they are just people.

 

6)So, how can I love a God that was so cruel as to order such a horrible slaughter?

 

I can’t and I don’t. I have seen Him work in my life and in others so much that the only thing I can concede is that we must be missing something. After all, the bible isn’t the whole story, right? It’s just a summary of events passed down. And, yes, it changed from person to person (sometimes up to 40%). Some people told the stories word for word while others thought for thought or message for message. Some would put more importance on one event while another wouldn’t even bring that one up. The messages of God’s love and guidance would not change but the stories varied. So, there could very well be parts of the stories that varied from the actual event. We have no idea what the entire story is.

 

All I know is that the God that has shown me He is there (by giving me strength, helping me find Him, answering my prayers and helping me change my life) is not that cruel. The God I worship is not a God that would order the slaughter of millions just because they didn’t worship Him. It goes against everything He has shown me in my life. My conclusion is that something is missing. There is something we do not know or understand.

 

7)Will I still trust the bible?

 

Yes.

 

I look at it for what it can teach me about how to live my life and the love of Christ; not for what I do not understand. And I have never gone wrong for that. I do not worship God because He has told me what the alternative is. I worship Him because He is my strength, love, kindness, grace, mercy and joy... and He has shown me all these things in my life. Others have seen it too, even if they are not Christian. They just don't know it's God and, the closer you are to Him, the more you see it in your life. Now, I see it everyday. He is either holding me up when everything around me is crashing, giving me joy, helping me with patience, ansering my prayers (though I get "no" a lot; even when I was going through Hell and asking Him to take me out of it)... the list goes on. He has shown me He is there... I can't ignore that. Now I can be thrown anything and, with God's strong arms holding me up, I can get through it all.

 

That’s it. Go ahead and tear it apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you answered my rebuttal with new claims? Your previous post proved me right. Admit it, or refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify my earlier post a bit, in a simplier fashion:

 

Kat, the interview you quoted actually supports my statement, that legends are created much faster than 500 years.

 

Read again, Gospel of Peter, written 130 AD, have embellished the story with additional legendary stuff, and hence is rejected by you and the Church just because it does so. That's 100 years only. Your professor indirectly admits that embellishments and making legends happens within 100 years.

 

Your answer is found in comparing other documents. Which is why I keep comming back to Alexander the Great. Whe his first biography was written (around 323 BC), 400 years after his death, historians have found it to be reliably accurate. Looking at bigraphies from later dates, they see that legend didn't start to set in until the second 500 years. This was BEFORE Christ and, therefore (if anything) MORE likely to have legend and errors. Based on this norm, the same idea can be applied to the information on Christ. I will have to come back with the links. It's getting late and I have been staring at this computer way too long and have a splitting headache now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about Alexander III, Megas Alexandros, dead 323 BC? Why is that 400 years after his death?

 

And why is that evidence that all legends always start 500 years later, when your other source say that Gospel of Peter had an embellished story about jesus 100 years after?

 

--edit--

 

Just because we can't find any legend stories about Alexander, there are other examples of legends building faster than 500 years. I gave you one, the Cargo Cult, and you gave me one, Gospel of Peter. So you can't assert that all legends take 500 years. Because we can see in history that it is generally wrong. Legends is always built around spectacular situations or people, but we don't always hear about them. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. In the case of Alexander, it's just one.

 

By the way, you're probably referring to this: "A quantity of the more legendary material coalesced into a text known as the Alexander Romance, the basis of all the Alexander legends of the middle ages, originated during the time of the Ptolemies, but in its present form belongs to the 3rd century AD. Its author is usually known as pseudo-Callisthenes, although in the Latin translation by Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius (beginning of the 4th century) it is ascribed to a certain Aesopus; Aristotle, Antisthenes, Onesicritus and Arrian have also been credited with the authorship."

 

But notice, "legends ... originated during the time of the Ptolemies". When did Ptolemies live? Somewhere betwen 305 BC to 30 BC. So if the Alexander Romance was a collection of legends from somewhere between 300 and 30 BC, then the legends were not so old after all. These things aren't for certain, but neither is that statement that the legends were "created" when the Romance was written. They were only a collection of earlier stories. Does it make sense?

 

And also, the Romance, the earliest copy is 500 years after Alexander's death, but it was a copy, so the original is older, and closer in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know why urban legends, which are nothing more than embellished stories or even outright lies, are not real legends, which are nothing more than embellished stories or even outright lies...

 

Can someone please explain this for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Is that a good explanation? :HaHa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:ugh: Please don't give me this nonsense about urban legends and the like. When I speak of the change from fact to legend being about 500 years, I am talking about the shifts which (for a time)are widely accepted in HISTORY. Real legends don't even really happen anymore because of video tapes, news papers, libraries with the capability of accessing information from all around the world etc. I don't care about wives tales and scary stories. I care about people from history who are documented and studied about today.

You mean like Elvis? :scratch:

 

How about the legends that have sprung up around Hitler? (apologies for the potential Godwin...)

 

The Legend of the Desert Fox? Stalin? Churchill?

 

None of them are 500+ years old, yet all of them are legends... changed from fact to legend and widely accepted in history... and all of them happened despite newspapers, videotapes/movie cameras and libraries. (though generally before the advent of the internet)

 

 

 

Maybe we should consider the legends that have sprung up about Jack and Rose? Yes, the cute couple from the Titanic movie... yes, there are people out there who consider them to be real people and the movie to be a documentary :twitch:

 

Ooops... a legend that has developed from proven history, something that shifted from fact to legend, something that was widely accepted in history... and all dutring the age of newspapers, videotapes and libraries with the capability of accessing information from all around the world etc.

 

 

 

Only take 500 years? Try something a lot smaller than that... like a few months or less. (hell, the legends about the people I mentioned were forming before they even died...)

 

Yup. Is that a good explanation? :HaHa:

Dunno... is that an urban yup or a real yup? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rurbareal yup. :scratch:

 

Have anyone heard the phrase "he was a legend in his own lifetime?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kat I am truly sorry that you experienced those painful things. I, myself, was on the verge of commiting suicide when I was 14, so I know how bad confusion can be.

 

And I wouldn't try to discount or attack your personal experience with God or the world in general...its not my place.

 

However, it is also not your place to discount my personal experience either, woudn't you agree?

 

In my experience, the bible is not trust worthy, even you admit it has errors and things that are hard to understand. You say you trust it, but I'm not about to trust something riddled with errors. And in MY experience the bible just isn't very helpful. I tried reading it every day and praying and doing everyrthing that I thought God wanted, and in the end my life was WORSE for it. Seriously, my life was going down the tubes. I had to take back control of my life rather than "trusting god" in order to get my life back on track.

 

My choices were that God either hated me and was punishing me, or he simply wasn't there....at least in the form I concieved of him. I chose the 2nd option. You should do a search in the testimony section and read my own deconversion. Actually there are several things about my experience I didn't write there, but there are still some things I'm not real comfortable talking about right now. But suffice to say my experience was a painful one.

 

I feel that if there is a God that he is a "big boy" and is not offended by my honest doubts of his existance. I also believe that he does not punnish people for eternity for not believing the right things. Perhaps All religions are just attempts that humans make to connect with something divine. If so, I'm no worse off being a Taoist/Confucianist (religions that I currently follow...loosly) than a Chrstian. Could you posibly concieve that all of these relgions exist so that God can comunicate to each person in a way they can understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your answer is found in comparing other documents. Which is why I keep comming back to Alexander the Great. Whe his first biography was written (around 323 BC), 400 years after his death, historians have found it to be reliably accurate.

 

Obviously you ignored my post. Alexander the Great and Jesus is no comparision. And it is bogus that he did have contempories

 

Once again here you go, incase you forgot to read

 

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html

 

All these authors lived more than three centuries after the events they described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are now lost

 

Please see the website for the contemporary of Alexander.

 

If you are claiming that the Gospels are historically accurate, then please tell provide me with historical and even biblical evidence for the following stupendous event which surpasses even Jesus's own resurrection

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

i await your answer, and I am still waiting for the following claim you made

Kindly point us to historical or biblical evidence that all the apostles died for their beliefs

 

and

 

name one non-christian documentation that says the disciples were martyred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Conceding where I should:

I agree that there are many contradictions in the bible and that those contradictions can make it hard for one to know if the bible has anything worth while to read from it. I agree that, though (compared to other historical documents) the bible holds up very well in number and date of manuscripts, we do not have original documents and that makes it hard to know what was told in the beginning.

 

I agree that, taking out the emotional comments and speculation about Hebrew soldier attitudes, the story of the other side is well told. It brings up a valid point of "With what we know from the bible about this story, how can God be that cruel?" And I would not want to worship a God who would brutally kill innocent people without cause.

First, I just wanted to commend you for knowing when to concede and having a partially open mind.

 

If you believe in God, that's fine with us. A lot of us here are deists and agnostics, so it doesnt bother us. Our problem now, well at least mine anyway, is that you choose to worship a book, which you admit contains inconsistencies and contradictions. How can you do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Conceding where I should:

 

Congratulations. Not many christians who come here have the courage to do such a thing - admitting when they're wrong. If you managed to do so, it could really mean that we can have a honest discussion with you.

 

 

 

About Alexander the great - yes, there are contemporary accounts of Alexander, look at the pictures here - a marble inscription of 330 BC, a greek statuette retrieved near tian shan (400 - 300 bc), a coin with alexander on it of 323 BC, and another one of 305 BC (yes, this one is not contemporary, but it's way better than 500 years later, no?) then there is a contemporary bust... and so on. Look at them if you want to.

 

 

 

Do you think all of those things are fake? If you think so, that's ok, but explain us why.

 

 

 

All I know is that the God that has shown me He is there (by giving me strength, helping me find Him, answering my prayers and helping me change my life) is not that cruel. The God I worship is not a God that would order the slaughter of millions just because they didn't worship Him. It goes against everything He has shown me in my life. My conclusion is that something is missing. There is something we do not know or understand.

 

 

 

Hm... I don't think it works this way. This is wanting to see things either black or white. Meaning: god has been good to you (giving you strenght, helping you find him, answering your prayers...) so he MUST be good in everything he does. Or - god has been evil with certain people, so he MUST be evil in everything he does and in such a way you would easily recognize it. Let's look it from another perspective: as you know, Hitler had a lover, she was called Eva Braun. Do you think that Hitler was evil with Eva? Do you think that he treated her badly? If so, why do you think so? He was very kind with her, as far as we know, and even put her along him on propaganda posters sometimes, even if he was catholic and catholics heavily frown over non-married couples (as was his case).

 

So if hitler can be evil, even if he was good with Eva, because he ordered the slaughter of 6 millions people and more, can it be that god is evil, even if he was good wth you, because he slaughtered personally the whole world population (even infants) exception made for 1 family?

 

I hope this question will sound logical to you.

 

 

 

Another thing, though: I want to ask you... can you pray for Hansolo? This would be the proof many of us need to go back to worshiping your god. Hansolo has very serious problems, his son can't walk anymore, seeing as god answers your prayers but he didn't answer Hansolo's, could you pray for his son to start walking again?

 

After all, there is no reason God shouldn't listen to your prayers, right? ... or is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With that said, what am I left with? I can give you what I have seen in my life about God. Please do not insult me by saying I am trying to make this all about me. Sometimes all one can do is go based off of their experience to find the truth. I know some people might mock me in different ways; making light of my experience. That's fine... it is still my story and no one can tell me that is a lie.

 

I feel the need to address this because I pointed out the areas in another post of yours where you were testifying to us about all your blessings. I have a very harsh way about the way I express things, but I only do it in order for the person I am speaking with to have a moment of realization. I didn't want you to take it personally, I just wanted you to realize that God isn't going to choose one person over another. I feel we are all equal and what we get, we get only when we decide that the way we are living is not good for us or for anyone around us. This is not God calling to you to repent and accept his authority, it is you turning away from what is wrong and as soon as you turn around, your eyes are open and can see things clearly. This is the force of God, IMO, that is always there. It isn't just available to Christians or people of any other faith, it is always there for everyone. It doesn't need recognition or worship...it doesn't change. If you find your solace in Christianity, then that is wonderful. If you find it looking at the sunset while sitting on the shore of a lake or ocean, then that is wonderful too. The only thing to beware of is claiming that you have found it in a certain place and that is the only place it can be found. I know you don't accept the gospel of Thomas as part of the bible, but as Jesus said, "Turn over a rock and you will find me". It's everywhere and nowhere. It can be found everywhere you look...if you are looking.

 

The bible is just another way of expressing how people understood what can't be understood. It has no more value than the sunset.

 

I have been through many things too Kat...crying out to God to help me and my family and no help came for me until I decided to stop begging for help and quite my mind. The answers then come.

 

I apologize if my prior post was insulting to you. But remember, we all experience life...its sorrows and joys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)Conceding where I should:

I agree that there are many contradictions in the bible and that those contradictions can make it hard for one to know if the bible has anything worth while to read from it. I agree that, though (compared to other historical documents) the bible holds up very well in number and date of manuscripts, we do not have original documents and that makes it hard to know what was told in the beginning.

 

And I also commend you - it's refreshing to see a Xian concede anything, or display the maturity to admit something like that. Most just stamp their feet and wave the Babble™ in our faces.

 

If you believe in God, that's fine with us. A lot of us here are deists and agnostics, so it doesnt bother us. Our problem now, well at least mine anyway, is that you choose to worship a book, which you admit contains inconsistencies and contradictions. How can you do that?

 

Good point. How is it you can still claim that the Babble™ is, moreover, a reliable book to base your religious beliefs off of to begin with? Doesn't the fact that we can't be sure of anything being worthwhile of our attention bother you, especially when the thrust of Xianity is that you have to accept Jeezus™ in total zealousness or else be burned eternally?

 

If you realize we can't really be sure about the Babble's™ veracity, then doesn't it stand that it's time to ask those "forbidden" questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7)Will I still trust the bible?

 

Yes.

 

I look at it for what it can teach me about how to live my life and the love of Christ; not for what I do not understand. And I have never gone wrong for that. I do not worship God because He has told me what the alternative is. I worship Him because He is my strength, love, kindness, grace, mercy and joy... and He has shown me all these things in my life. Others have seen it too, even if they are not Christian. They just don't know it's God and, the closer you are to Him, the more you see it in your life. Now, I see it everyday. He is either holding me up when everything around me is crashing, giving me joy, helping me with patience, ansering my prayers (though I get "no" a lot; even when I was going through Hell and asking Him to take me out of it)... the list goes on. He has shown me He is there... I can't ignore that. Now I can be thrown anything and, with God's strong arms holding me up, I can get through it all.

 

That’s it. Go ahead and tear it apart.

No. I will not "tear it apart". I won't give you the satisfaction of playing the martyr for Christ. You seem to believe that we're simply cruel mockers, who take delight in trying to shake your faith.

 

Well, you're wrong. We're just people having a discussion with a person who holds an opposing view. A person who DECIDED to enter into a discussion with us, ON HER OWN ACCORD. So, please, quit with the breast beating. It's tiresome.

 

With THAT out of the way, I will ask you something, Kat22: Why does the idea of SELF-WORTH offend you so much?

 

You seem to be taking perverse delight in giving god the glory for all of YOUR accomplishments. And you take offense to us when we even suggest that it was ALL YOU who overcame and overcome your struggles. No "god" held you up, or held your hands. YOU did it! Congratulations!

 

Is it REALLY so awful to realize that it was YOU who had the inner strength and character to succeed in life despite the odds? Are we really such awful people for wanting to congratulate YOU for being a success, instead of your Imaginary Friend?

 

I don't understand all of this Christian "humility" nonsense. Why is self-worth so "sinful"? :shrug:

 

(And please, spare me the Biblical™ answer. I'm well aware of what the book says. I'm an ex-preacher as well as ex-Christian. I want to hear from your heart, why you believe mankind is "wicked" or "evil" for self-accomplishments. Why MUST it be "god" and nothing else?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a rurbareal yup. :scratch:

 

Have anyone heard the phrase "he was a legend in his own lifetime?"

 

Yup. And I know a particularly arrogant person who is "a legend in his own mind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that something similar to being Anonymously Famous?

 

--edit--

 

Oh, another thought. Mother Theresa has not been dead very long, and already miracles are being assigned to her. Was she a True Christian, who the Holy Ghost worked through and made miracles? Was she filled with the Holy Spirit like St Paul? She already have 600 Divine Favors ascribed to her. She's been dead about 5-6 years only, and the miracle count is increasing as we speak... (So it takes 500 years? Yeah, right.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.