The Challenge to any Fundementalist Chrsitain reading this
sent in by Mike
This is a challenge to any fundamentalist Christians reading this.
I have posted this challenge already but it seems to have been ignored by the Christians who view this site, and hijacked by those wanting a political debate. I would challenge any Christians who insist that the bible is the inerrant word of god, to specifically answer the three questions below.
Lots of you think that the ex-Christians on this site are either running from God or have given up because they want to be 'in the world' in order to sin. You just can't get your heads round the fact that the Bible is full of holes, and that we haven't 'chosen' to disbelieve. Instead we disbelieve because once you read the Bible you realise that it is full of holes. I have three types of problems with the Bible, and I challenge the Christians to explain them, without resorting to personal attacks such as "If you were a real Christian, you wouldn't need to ask these questions".
Problem 1: There are many, many passages that clearly contradict each other. E.g. how many men were healed in the region of the Genesarenes, where the pigs hurtled down the bank into the water? How many angels were present at the empty tomb? Was the stone rolled away before anyone came to the tomb or while some were present? There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of these contradictions, and many are listed on other testimony pages. You would have thought that the Word of God, your response to which is supposed to dictate your destination for all eternity, would be clear, concise and consistent. However, it is none of the above. How the hell are we meant to be condemned to hell, when the only book we are supposed to be guided by is so contradictory?
2. There are passages containing promises that clearly do not work. In Isaiah 53 it says "by his stripes we are healed". But of course we aren't. In the new testament we read that if two or three agree in prayer, the prayer will be answered, and if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, we can literally move mountains with prayer. Of course, this is also rubbish, (and please don't try and tell me 'mountain' just means 'large problem').
3. Finally there are those passages that are clearly undefendable, as they contradict what the Bible says elsewhere about God being loving. I submit two examples for you: 1. In Exodus, when Moses and Aaron are demanding the release of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity, God's final plague kills all the firstborn, including innocent children and babies. Imagine George Bush and Tony Blair telling the world that, in order to speed up the Iraq way, the allied air forces would bomb the schools and orphanages instead of the command bunkers and ammo dumps. That would be a war crime and yet here is the God of love doing just that. If God can do all things, he could have struck down each pharoh that said 'no' to Moses' demand, just like God did with Ananias and Saphyra in Acts 5. Eventually, one of the replacement pharohs would have wised up and said yes. God didn't do that and instead killed innocent babies and kids. Great one. The second example is the book of Job. God and Satan are involved in what we in industry call a 'pissing contest' for bragging rights. As a consequence, Job loses his health, his livelihood and all his children. His three friends try to console him, with such wisdom as 'you obviously are guilty of sin because bad things happen when you sin' and 'you must not have had enough faith. (You obviously haven't been to enough church services, revival meetings etc)'. Job dismisses all of this BS. God eventually turns up and answers Job's questions of 'why did this all happen' with this gem: "I'm big and powerful, look at all the big things I created. I could snuff you out in an instance, I'm that powerful. Don't talk to me like that". God THREATENS Job. After all he's put Job through, (don't forget, God TOLD Satan to afflict Job), all God has to say is 'I'm big, don't f**k with me". That's God's message to the bereaved and the hurting who want to know 'why'. Nice one, God!
So, there we are. Let's see how the Christians answer the above. Let them tell us how they can believe in the god as portrayed in the Bible. I'm waiting.
Birmingham
England
Became a Christian at 17
Left Christianity at 39
Was: Evangelical, charismatic
Now: Serious doubter
Converted because: Youth club membership
De-converted because: Serious concerns with the bible
This is a challenge to any fundamentalist Christians reading this.
I have posted this challenge already but it seems to have been ignored by the Christians who view this site, and hijacked by those wanting a political debate. I would challenge any Christians who insist that the bible is the inerrant word of god, to specifically answer the three questions below.
Lots of you think that the ex-Christians on this site are either running from God or have given up because they want to be 'in the world' in order to sin. You just can't get your heads round the fact that the Bible is full of holes, and that we haven't 'chosen' to disbelieve. Instead we disbelieve because once you read the Bible you realise that it is full of holes. I have three types of problems with the Bible, and I challenge the Christians to explain them, without resorting to personal attacks such as "If you were a real Christian, you wouldn't need to ask these questions".
Problem 1: There are many, many passages that clearly contradict each other. E.g. how many men were healed in the region of the Genesarenes, where the pigs hurtled down the bank into the water? How many angels were present at the empty tomb? Was the stone rolled away before anyone came to the tomb or while some were present? There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of these contradictions, and many are listed on other testimony pages. You would have thought that the Word of God, your response to which is supposed to dictate your destination for all eternity, would be clear, concise and consistent. However, it is none of the above. How the hell are we meant to be condemned to hell, when the only book we are supposed to be guided by is so contradictory?
2. There are passages containing promises that clearly do not work. In Isaiah 53 it says "by his stripes we are healed". But of course we aren't. In the new testament we read that if two or three agree in prayer, the prayer will be answered, and if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, we can literally move mountains with prayer. Of course, this is also rubbish, (and please don't try and tell me 'mountain' just means 'large problem').
3. Finally there are those passages that are clearly undefendable, as they contradict what the Bible says elsewhere about God being loving. I submit two examples for you: 1. In Exodus, when Moses and Aaron are demanding the release of the Israelites from Egyptian captivity, God's final plague kills all the firstborn, including innocent children and babies. Imagine George Bush and Tony Blair telling the world that, in order to speed up the Iraq way, the allied air forces would bomb the schools and orphanages instead of the command bunkers and ammo dumps. That would be a war crime and yet here is the God of love doing just that. If God can do all things, he could have struck down each pharoh that said 'no' to Moses' demand, just like God did with Ananias and Saphyra in Acts 5. Eventually, one of the replacement pharohs would have wised up and said yes. God didn't do that and instead killed innocent babies and kids. Great one. The second example is the book of Job. God and Satan are involved in what we in industry call a 'pissing contest' for bragging rights. As a consequence, Job loses his health, his livelihood and all his children. His three friends try to console him, with such wisdom as 'you obviously are guilty of sin because bad things happen when you sin' and 'you must not have had enough faith. (You obviously haven't been to enough church services, revival meetings etc)'. Job dismisses all of this BS. God eventually turns up and answers Job's questions of 'why did this all happen' with this gem: "I'm big and powerful, look at all the big things I created. I could snuff you out in an instance, I'm that powerful. Don't talk to me like that". God THREATENS Job. After all he's put Job through, (don't forget, God TOLD Satan to afflict Job), all God has to say is 'I'm big, don't f**k with me". That's God's message to the bereaved and the hurting who want to know 'why'. Nice one, God!
So, there we are. Let's see how the Christians answer the above. Let them tell us how they can believe in the god as portrayed in the Bible. I'm waiting.
Birmingham
England
Became a Christian at 17
Left Christianity at 39
Was: Evangelical, charismatic
Now: Serious doubter
Converted because: Youth club membership
De-converted because: Serious concerns with the bible
Comments
I am curious to see which one comes out as leader of the pack. I suspect that it will be one for which there isn't even a xian apologist that can remotely provide even a doubtful response.
It is hard to argue on the level of the mind. Even science cannot come to an agreement on many issues. Does this mean science does not exist and that we should throw all science out the window? Probably not.
Also remember that a man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. For twenty years I lived for this world. For the past twenty three years now I have lived for God. The wisdom this world offered was nothing more then a deafening silence. The wisdom and understanding God has given me, well it changed my life.
I will leave you to find all the errors you want. I will also leave you with a prayer: Lord, reveal Yourself not through anyone’s mind but through their heart.
"It's unfortunate that you have chosen to bring God down to a mere intellectual level. The problem is that God does not dwell in man's intellectual reasoning for as you are well aware of the fact that the Bible says that men's ways are not the ways of God for the ways of God are so much higher than mans."
....::yawn::....
So much higher than man's ways, eh? Perfect. Okay then, the first "logical" question would be: Why in the hell is there an entire fricking book dedicated to EXPLAINING God's ways TO man?(another contradiction....shocked?)
Seriously, if "God's ways" are so far beyond our comprehension, then I would nicely ask every Christian out there to please----STOP reading from, ministering from, justifying your predjudice from, spouting hateful things from, and MOST of all, please stop coming here and regurgitating scripture from that book known as "God's Word"...i.e...your "Holey" Bible. Thanks so much.
1. The bible doesn't glow when you open it. It's not going to strike you with lightning if you try to burn it. It's just a collection of writings from people that make mistakes like everyone else. Whether or not they were "inspired" is a matter of faith. The point is that the authors do agree on central ideas. From what little I know about the bible, there are no major contradictions in this regard. I would think that the people who assembled the writings would have left anything like that.
2. Saying that a particular belief doesn't work is matter of personal faith and can't really be viewed as a good argument.
3. This is also a matter of opinion. As modern civilized people, we can't understand alot of the practices of other cultures. What seems terrible to us would be normal to another. "Civilized" people thought the indians were savages, and they probably were. But we didn't ahve the right to enforce our way of life on them, no matter how better off we think they'd be. In some countries torture is an accepted practice and normal way of life. To them it's not wrong. So when you see all these things in the bible that seem barbaric, whether they are or not isn't the issue. We can't really understand the way they think unless we're in their shoes. Looking at another cultures practices and beliefs from the outside and saying their wrong isn't a very strong argument agaist the bible. Maybe they thought God killed people that were evil. It's not our responsibility to judge an ancient culture's way of thinking.
Give it up Annoy because it will not work. You know your heart ONLY pumps blood and your mind think, imagine and hold memories (unless you become senile in which time your memory wears away almost to the base, as at the end of an erosion cycle).
You lack the basic common senses, Annoy. Try biology 101 and this time, don't miss a class!
CONCEPTION OF JESUS.
Do you think that Mary and Joseph should have remembered the miraculous events surrounding the birth of Jesus? You would naturally think that when a woman goes through a unique conception, that she would remember it, and that the man who’s wife became pregnant while they were engaged, without any effort on his part, that he would remember it also. It is not something he would easily forget. Yet the gospel writers seem to have strange memory lapses.
According to Luke 2: 42-50, Mary finds Jesus in the temple, she chastises him for causing so much trouble, whereby he replied "Why is it that you are looking for me? Did you not know that I must be concerned with the affairs of my father". Luke’s gospel adds, "and they (Mary and Joseph) did not understand the saying that he (Jesus) spoke to them." Mary does not understand, Joseph does not understand, If Mary and Joseph were both visited by angels before the birth of Jesus, how is it that they don’t understand, some twelve years later. Has Mary forgotten that Jesus was supernaturally conceived in such a way as was never experienced by any other person? Is it unlikely that Mary would forget Elizabeth saying to her? "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb." "And why is this (granted) to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." Luke 1:42-43, and especially Mary’s own words. "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my saviour. For he has looked upon the humble state of his slave girl, for, behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed, because the mighty one has done great things to me, and holy is his name." Luke 1:46-49,
After all of this Mary does not know what Jesus meant when he said that he must be concerned about the affairs of his father. How could Mary and Joseph forget that the wise men Magi worshipped Jesus as a baby and presented him with gold, frankincense, and myrrh? Matthew 2:11, They also seemed to forget how an angel appeared to Joseph telling him to go to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Matthew 2: 13, and that Herod slew all of the children two years of age or under in Bethlehem. Matthew 2: 16. How could they forget that, (apart from the fact that it fulfilled scripture,
Hosea 11:1) Why did they have to flee to Egypt ? Did they go to Egypt? According to Luke 2: 39, they went to Nazareth and were not in the dangerous area of Bethlehem, where it is alleged that Herod had the children slain. This creates another problem Herod died four years prior to when the church originally stated that Jesus was born.
Perhaps Matthew’s placing them in Egypt to fulfill scripture was too quick for Joseph and Mary to remember, for Luke 2: 22, has them in Jerusalem for forty days after the birth to fulfill Leviticus 12:1-8, and then in Luke 2:39, they return to Nazareth. They also seemed to forget how the shepherds, made known the saying which had been told to them about this child, Luke 2: 17. Mary and Joseph even forgot, how they marveled ten months after the angelic visitations, that is, one month after the event surrounding Jesus birth.
At that time they were already surprised when Simeon and Anna, the daughter of Phanvel, spoke of Jesus future while he was yet still an infant. Luke 2:25-38.
If these events are historical, why is it that later, during Jesus active period, no one, not even his family, seem to know of his marvelous origins, Matt.13: 54-55, If a conception took place would not Mary have some idea just as to who Jesus was? Would not she reveal this information to her family? Yet we find that Jesus relatives, who came to seize him, Mark 3:21,31, are not told by Mary his mother, who comes and joins them, that contrary to what they think, Jesus is not crazy.
The gospel of John states "For neither did his brothers believe in him" John 7: 5, Did Mary not inform the rest of her children of Jesus divine origins. It is hard to understand that Mary would not inform them that Jesus was the "messiah" so that they might believe in him and thereby enjoy salvation, and what of Mary’s own reaction towards Jesus. In the few appearances that Mary herself makes in the gospels, during the lifetime of Jesus, there is no indication that she showed any understanding that her son Jesus, was the "son of God." by means of a unique conception. Mark 3:31-35, John 2:3-4. She, Mary revealed no such understanding to his followers.
Jesus earlier followers said that Jesus became the "Son of God" through the resurrection and they never mentioned a unique conception. Paul declared Jesus to be "Son of God" with power, by the resurrection from the dead. Romans 1: 4, see also Acts 13: 33, Where Psalm 2: 7 is applied to the resurrection.
The doctrine of a unique conception seems to have no effect upon Christian teaching prior to its mention in the last part of the first century.
On the basis of New Testament records it is doubtful that Jesus family, or the early believers, and most of all, even Mary herself did not know about the unique conception she is alleged to have undergone." Did you not know that I must be concerned with the affairs of my Father?" Strange as it may seem, Mary and Joseph did not know it. They did not know it because they had never heard of their son’s "miraculous conception". It appears that the unique miraculous conception came into circulation long after the deaths of the people in this story.
If only there was a scrubber to detect stupidiy the minute they start typing away...
Here is what Jim Lee had to say: “The bible is a book of bullshit. Here is an example According to Leviticus Homosexuality is an abomination and is punishable by death, however so is eating shellfish, like prawns, crayfish, oysters. How many Christians eat this type of food yet condemn those with sexual preferences.”
Have you worn any wool with linen lately?
Worn any short sleeves? ------ My bad, that’s Islamic
Yep, all of it is bullshit!!!
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
But nowhere in the bible does it say, it repented the Lord that he created Satan and allowed all evil to exist on earth, nor did it grieve him at his heart.
Genesis Ch. 6 vs. 6
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
But nowhere in the bible does it say, it repented the Lord that he created Satan and allowed all evil to exist on earth, nor did it grieve him at his heart.
Yet these same people that this god regretted making, gave them permission to write a book about his requirements toward salvation.
Talk about contradictions.....lol
To you anonymous christians posters, reality and truth are a threat to you, you have nothing to ad to these forums, why don't you all go pray for yourself that you might acquire some common sense, instead of waisting your time trying to spew your religious beliefs on to us, it does not work here.
If not then, explain to all us what is love? We're waiting!
That's because the devil is god's other personality.
Actually, Annoy, we never asked for your comments, but it's typical of christians to go where they are not invited. So don't get bent out of shape.
~If only there was a scrubber to detect stupidiy the minute they start typing away...~
Would the lion have become the king of the beasts if he had felt sorry for the Gazelle? No!
We kill virtually every other creature on earth to maintain our position at the top of the food chain. WHY? Because that is the way God made us!
If I was God, I would tell Satan to "Take a hike," but then I am more moral than God. I would never do some of the horrendous things that he does, like letting millions of babies starve, or allow billions of people to have their minds held captive by primitive religions.
Dan
Look, it's simple---here at Ex-Christian.net we tear down C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-I-T-Y----we do it by the same right of passage that people at an AA support site would tear down alcoholism and the people who push it. And quite frankly, the people who would be ballzy enough to DO such a thing are only asking to get chewed up and spit out. Either provide objective evidence for your belief, or scram. Thanks.
I posted a response on the old thread, and then I found this one. Anyway, I was going to leave it at that, but I wanted to recommend a book to you that I've been reading. It's called "A New Kind of Christian," by Brian McLaren. It's actually the beginning of a trilogy, so far I've only read the first. Don't get bogged down by the dorky prose, there are some ideas presented pretty radically different from modern Christianity. Okay, that's all then. Thanks for your civillity in your previous response.
Sincerely,
Josh
The problem is my fellow ex-Christian is that our moral platform doesn’t have to be above others but when competing with the bible and theocracy’s moralities, ours are superior……unlike the christians, they have to blame others and supernatural hocus pocus (devils) for their short commings, refusing to take respsibility....and they hate it!
It's all about the flesh and blood...the stench of rotting flesh...what a gawd concept.
Notice, with every sacrific, it involved flesh and blood.
Yea, Take a sh*t or get off the pot!
I, like you walked away and, like you felt intellectually superior for awhile. Then I started learning.
You can find me in Yahoo CC4 most days, or we can start a thread at theologyweb.com if you like. But know that I am nore more interested in being swore at or being subjected to name calling.
zap_30jeanluc
"no more interested in being swore at or subjected to name calling than the originator of this piece"
zap_30jeanluc
Seriously, come find me in Yahoo, we'll talk.
He's pretty much got this ex-
christian thing "down!"......
YOU GO JIM,!!YU DA MAN!...
P.s., great site,& its an honor to know you sir!
ANUS#1,000,0000,O0000,000&2
Dose'nt god say "LET US REASON TOGETHER<.AND DID'NT JEBUSS
COME DOWN TO OUR LEVEL TO REACH US?
IT DON'T ADD UP DOES IT?
YEE HAY!
Whew! This one will be fun. I must say that I completely disagree with the analogous statement of God's Judgement and the whitehouse officials. Unlike some people I support the government, but enough of that. It was not GOD that had the babies killed, but the choice of man's wickedness. God does not force man to think for or against something that would end innocent babies lives for example. So, in a sense, he is powerless to stop it, so therefore unnacountable, unless you trace it all the way back to even making man in the first place. Honestly, what would you think of God if he actually HAD struck down the pharoahs? Now onto Job's story. I am not sure if Job was more of a symbolic story than an actual person, but nonetheless, God knew that he could make an example of Job, and so it was written in the bible. If Job had been a wicked man like mostly the rest of the world, it would have made even less sense. I think God was justified in doing this to Job, if you'll read on, he was then blessed many times over for his faithful commitment to God. So I make another point clarified, I am eager to hear what other things I can clear up for you. Perhaps you might even try to convince me of your views? I am the opposite of a zealot, I WANT someone to convince me the bible is wrong. Good luck, they don't call me Daniel (Which means faith in hebrew) for nothing.
Alright, this is a really simple response, do you believe in miracles? Have you, or anyone you know experienced a miracle? I'm sure you've heard at least one miraculous story in your life time. I for one, believe in miracles, and that anything is possible. So therefore, my faith is "greater than a mustard seed", and if God willed it as test of my faith, I would pray, and I know the mountain would move. But perhaps an example would be a better persuasion to my point. As for the example of two or three agreeing in prayer, I have found that all of my prayers (Justified and logical ones, not like, Oh God smite this person, because thats a curse, not a prayer) have been answered most efficiently in groups. The bible tells us to pray without ceasing, if you are having troubles having your prayers answered, check your motives, and keep praying, there have been people praying for years, and then finally it being answered, I'm sure you could find such a testimony all over the internet. I'm not here to convert, I'm here to convince you, the reader, that my arguement is logical and persuasively conclusive. It is now your turn for a counter arguement, if any. And please, spare me the insults, you ex-christians crucify us with stereotypical sayings of us being closed-minded, of which I surely am not. I'll take another quote, which was found in the bible as well, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So don't be closed-minded on me, please.
Sit on that for a while, I'm sure that makes sense to someone else out there reading this.
"As a closing statement I wish to make known my view of God. God is neither good nor evil, he is neutral, and neutral is good. God created both good and evil, and thusly has knowledge of both. Consider this, Can you have good without a bad? Can you have purity without sin? Can there be perfection without imperfection?
Sit on that for a while, I'm sure that makes sense to someone else out there reading this."
posted: 2/10/2006 5:35 AM EST
Dano answers:
Since the intelligence of a God capable of creating everything, and knowing everything cannot be compared with creatures like us that are just a little bit smarter than Chimps (Our first cousins), we therefore cannot pose any intelligent question as to what he is capable of.
If I had to guess, I would guess that he may have already created a more perfect form of life out there on one of those 2 billion other planets that are similar to earth. 90% of the humans here on Earth cannot even see or comprehend the basic irrationality of him creating a Satan, or needing a human sacrifice to him. Most of the people here on earth cannot even see that their pretending to Know who God is or what it thinks, is totally ludicrous!
Dan
I'm certain that you do not realize that your first post actually supports our many of our beliefs. (The atheists anyway)
"A child believes in Santa Claus, but never sees him, but still is sure that He will bring his presents, and sure enough they are."
Yes a child believes in an unseen Santa. Gifts are the only supporting evidence. Of course these gifts are from freinds and relatives. I agree this is faith. Just as belief in a god who brought you a universe, a universe brought to you by natural means, is faith.
The wholey babble is 100% nonsense and I find it useless. I used to think it had some value as toliet paper, but it is too rough.
You can also wish for magic from your imaginary friend all you want and think that because every now and then something your prayed for happens, it works. It doesn't.
Regards, carol
You know what?
You have what every christian, every muslim, every person that claim a knowledge or relationship with their god.
It's called Spiritually Superior....you and millions and billions just like you Daniel think that they have recieved this special gift of knowledge and it therefore grants you a special privilege to be spiritually superior, just like the baptist think they are more spiritually superior than mormons, or the jews, or the muslims, and the muslims think that they are more spiritually superior over jews, and on and on, etc. etc. nothing but wars and hatred have spread out from all religions, and we can feel your hatred spewing on to us Atheist's and nonbelievers, because you think that you have something that we don't have. By having this belief in a god or your book of words this somehow makes you feel supreme, it makes you feel justified to push your stupid beliefs on to people that have no use in feeling superior over others.
The pilgrims killed over 50 million Indians because they felt spiritually superior, we went over to Iraq because America is spiritually superior and we've killed innocent women and children, but it's not told to us it's kept secret.
Daniel get over yourself, you have nothing but a silly belief, grow up, you sound like a silly 10 year old boy that owns something that is only obtainable by listening to you.
We have no use for your mindrot philosopy, you're the loser here, you lose with all hands down, now go away and pout to mommy that you've been scolded, you little snot nosed brat.
"Your" view of god..humm. From the last count, there were 8,000+ other views. So where does "your" view fit into this number? Is it the 6,999th view...lol
By the way, since you been here, you have been qouting scriptures out your ying yang...where is that one found..ya know, the "nuetral" stuff?
I am a christian. I actually was looking for somthing on google and saw this site. I was not looking to debate with Non-christians about why they are wrong. Why? We are all people living our own lives and that's, that!
Danial you say you are a christian and you are talking about the bible and trying to defend the comments that were posted by the orginial author of this debate. But, don't forget that the bible also saids not to argue and debate with man... so why are you... you keep writing things to heat debates.. but rememeber you are on a site devoted to proving christianity wrong. So, why not leave this site and live your life and let them live theirs. Why argue, God didn't argue when he was chanllanged to defend himself the day he was sentenced to be crucified, nor should you.
Katie
Honey, its not the fact that he was crucified, or how he behaved during the process that is important. What is important is: Is this the best concept of God that they could come up with back then? A God who needed a pagan sacrifice to himself. A sacrifice that was somehow magically him. A child that was conceived by a Holy Ghost, that was also magically him, into one of his own children, (Mary) What is important to understand is Jesus thought he was a special son of God, and if he was, it wouldn't be any big thing to die, knowing that you were somehow magically God. What IS IMPORTANT for you to understand is: The whole concept is Pagan, primitive, irrational, and is an insult to Gods intelligence.
Dan
"...have been historicaly recorded and can be proven and found in texts in the Vatican,..."
Please enlighten us about these texts as we all wish to examine them and their contents!
As a former catholic, the only thing I heard about "secret texts" was that they revealed the true nature of the church. You know this truth but are afraid to admit it. Jesus was a lie and it is all about control!
I do not believe in your mythological god nor any power attributed to it over this existance!
Have a nice day!
Really?
"As a closing statement I wish to make known my view of God. God is neither good nor evil, he is nuetral. And nuetral is good."
Okay, even the banjo player on Deliverance would see the contradiction here: Let's see, God is not in a set of "good or evil"; God is "neutral". Yet, if "neutral is good", then "neutral" is in a sub-set of "good"....so then by pure mathematics, God would HAVE to be "good", yet, handsome starts out his speil with "God is neither good nor evil". Jesus christ, that is BRILLIANT! lol!
Note: If ANY world view is "neutral", it is most certainly the atheist/agnostic world view. We are merely waiting on this thing called......EVIDENCE.
Of course, while his statement is only a subjective opinion---and as well, while it fails miserably in concept---it also fails because we know that there has NEVER been evidence put forth for a "God" in the first place, as just mentioned.
One more time, folks: The bible is NOT evidence for the existance of a "God", anymore than "Twas the Night Before Christmas" is proof of St. Nick. So again, any Christian: Please provide OBJECTIVE, UNIVERSAL, ABSO--F%CKING-LUTE evidence for the Christian God, and the Holy Bible as "His Word". You would save so much face if you would just say "I don't have evidence, I take it on Faith"...... notwithstanding, "Faith as big as a mustard seed" won't budge a mustard seed.
Kind of makes you wonder about "those" who live amongst us, doesn’t it?
Well put boomslang!
there are some cases of "Divine Intervention, as per means of righteous smiting."
Daniel,
I love that word "righteous smiting", can I use it? Did God use "righteous smiting" on Job's family? Do I use "righteous smiting" on my penis? Sometimes I think that I am going to choke it to death, is that the same?
Your Pal,
Farris
Science can go either way on this. Many scientific discoveries suggest the existence of God. Why would he create a physical world that does not attest to His presence? However, if you're looking for measureable units of God's presence, Gpu's, so to speak, you won't find them. So do you see what I mean? There's no conclusive proof on either side.
Why are you so angry at fundamentalist Christians? Doesn't it seem a better use of your energy and mind to do something more productive and beneficial to the community in which you live?
Most of you say (in paraphrase) "I didn't leave the church because of a bad experience with the people, just because I saw too many holes in the Bible."
Your responses tend not to match that concept - you seem to be very angry at fundamentalist Christians in general, regardless of what they say or do. Where is all of this anger coming from?
Don't mind me.
No offense, but I think it's time for you to move on to somewhere else. You are no longer welcome here.
Sincerely.
Daniel comes across perfectly clear to me. He says:
"I don't think you can blame God for all the horrible things that have happened to the world. 911, Katrina. Actually, I've overheard rumor that Katrina was a result of the government testing out new technology, and similarly a new battle tactic, it seems pyschics have gained root in the government, which has been seen in several police investigations if you don't believe me." AND......:
"But even the 'primitive' shamans of jungle tribes and American indians believed in spirits and communed with them, so there should be no doubt they existed"
It is perfectly clear to me that DANIEL believes that the government just may have caused Hurricane Katrina, that he believes in psychics, and that people commune with spirits. Every one of his posts disclose some core belief that he maintains. Even though, as a result of a summation of all of his beliefs makes him look a little like an "Air Head" I believe that when he runs out of theories, and gets bored with himself, he may mull over what some of us have said in this great body of pro rational thought. (people like him avoid the great rational questions about their metaphysical beliefs, as if they were the plague) , but I do agree with you on your sentiment:
"Daniel, I'm sorry, but you're a just bit out there."
Dan
Name one scientist or a scientific dicovery that suggested the existence of a god.
Give us evidence or shut it!
No matter what you do, or say, no matter how many times you mock it, the Church will be around forever because Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church.
I work on complicated 3D models and I can assure you that in order to create a simple arm that even remotely resembles a human arm takes hours to model. If you were to create working bones and muscles that function "work" like real life (but in a virtual world), that would take much longer. Add to that the fact that every hair follicle is different and even the fact that all our fingerprints are different. It all involves an impossible amount of time. Then you consider the amount of man-hours it took to create those programs that allow the modeller to create the model.
You probably know where this is heading. I will give everything I own if somone can touch a button and on a computer that has a randomizer program that creates a model from this random action.
It will create something that looks like nothing that we know. It won't even be able to function in a virtual world, much less in the real world. Don't forget that our arms have feel, age, heal, and that the virtual arm can't.
I have read almost anything that I can get my hands on, different philosophical approaches, and nothing has moved me like the Bible. I know that in my heart and my soul that it is inspired from God. If you don't have that faith, then you will try to "find" things that are wrong with it. Also, if you don't have a faith in God at all, I pray for you. The bible says that the only unpardonable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit. We all know have the "knowledge" of God, but some people put themselves above God and make themselves above Him by not believing in Him.
By the way, it's not only Fundamentalists that would not agree with you, but any Christian. I am a conservative/orthodox Catholic Christian and I also believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. If it has holes, it's because your faith is full of holes.
Kind of like, the the Protestant Christians really knew their bible, and god, they wouldn't have split away from the Catholic Christians, right. Great answer, hope to see more of that great logic flowing and ebbing through.
RM: "No matter what you do, or say, no matter how many times you mock it, the Church will be around forever because Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church."
RM, who needs to mock, there are currently over 38,000 denominations of christianity around the globe, who tell everyone that their church is the "rue" church. Your own religion, is self-destructive, many just merely sit back and point out the facts.
RM: "I work on complicated 3D models and I can assure you that in order to create a simple arm that even remotely resembles a human arm takes hours to model."
However, if you are using an OO language, and can store objects, like a DNA sequence, then after one creation it becomes nothing to grab the same oject and reuse on the next model.
RM: "If you were to create working bones and muscles that function "work" like real life (but in a virtual world), that would take much longer."
Bio-geneticists do it daily, they know how to modify the frame of the object to produce varying results, of "real life" bones and muscle.
RM: "Add to that the fact that every hair follicle is different and even the fact that all our fingerprints are different. It all involves an impossible amount of time."
Grab a handful of sand, and each granule is not 'exactly' the same form, does that mean someone spent a lot of time changing the shape of each piece of sand, so, there is a sand god somewhere, great. A new one to add to the list.
RW: "It all involves an impossible amount of time. Then you consider the amount of man-hours it took to create those programs that allow the modeller to create the model."
The more "time" a human programmer (god), spends creating a modelling application more refined and functional, the "less" time it takes to create models by the typical modeller. I can draw pictures, one pixel at a time, or, I can use a digital camera to "snap" a picture, which of the two seems faster.
RM: "You probably know where this is heading. I will give everything I own if somone can touch a button and on a computer that has a randomizer program that creates a model from this random action."
Uh, that is easily accomplished, one only need to create code and attributes, and hit a sequence generator. That's like saying, a combination code with over 4 billion possible combinations can't be cracked randomly, but, each time a combination is checked and it doesn't work, that is one less to work with, it may take time, but, the combination will be revealed. The difference, is that in a combination analogy, the creator of the algorithm knows the right combination. In your scenario, you have no "true" combination code to work from, as that would suggest that we are "exactly" as each of us should be because you "know" that we were correctly modelled. Its just as possible, that humanity as we stand today, are just one more checked combination, and could just as easily be the "wrong" combination. If you know how to prove what the "true" combination is for the living form of humanity, then provide.
RM: "I have read almost anything that I can get my hands on, different philosophical approaches, and nothing has moved me like the Bible."
Really, and what philosophy does the bible provide you. Use a comparative analogy if you want to really make your case.
RM: "We all know have the "knowledge" of God, but some people put themselves above God and make themselves above Him by not believing in Him."
Uh, no, I personally place myself equal to the person who told me of a god, and that would be a preacher and parents. So, now that I am equal with clergy, I know they can know no more than I, and therefore, god no longer is a fact to be blindly accepted by some other person because they suggest a god exists.
RM: "I am a conservative/orthodox Catholic Christian and I also believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. If it has holes, it's because your faith is full of holes."
And a serial killer would suggest that if you don't think like them, its not because you are sane, but because you just aren't capable of seeing their point of view. Did you spend a lot of time thinking that one up, based on everything you could get your hands on to read also. The bible is one big hole, you stare through it and believe you see reality, but really, you are just looking at this world through a hole, as opposed to a holy, book.
You said:
"Uh, that is easily accomplished, one only need to create code and attributes, and hit a sequence generator. That's like saying, a combination code with over 4 billion possible combinations can't be cracked randomly, but, each time a combination is checked and it doesn't work, that is one less to work with, it may take time, but, the combination will be revealed. "
So who is this "one" who creates this code and attributes. It doesn't happen out of nothing.
I hope you have a great life, because to me this is a waste of time, just as you might think that I'm a waste of time talking to. My time is better spent with those who are willing to listen to the word of God.
Rember, if I'm wrong about God (which I wholeheartedly know I'm not), then I lose nothing. At the same time, I add to this world by feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, helping the poor and doing the things Christ commanded me to do, which is to love everyone, including you!
If you're wrong, then you lose it all.
Oh, and God loves you but if you don't love him back he'll be watching you roast in horrific agony for ever, and ever, and ever, and ever!
True justice demands eternal retribution and punishment for temporal sins.
Great - I got it now. No need to waste any more of your eternal life on us.
Thanks.
I am not going to try and convience you that God is real,just like I don't want you to try and convience me that he is not. This was the first time I ever seen a site like this and of course it stings a little, simply b/c I live for this God you say is not real. But, I am ok that others are different.... or I'm different... however we want to look at it. You have all at some point been a christian or heard enough of christianity to know what it is... so I won't repeat things to you.
Danial,
You seem to be very knowledgable of the bible, but I don't follow half of what you say... sorry... You say staying on this site makes you feel challanged and stuff, but if you want a real challange why not go where you are needed, not were your not wanted.... The reason half these people have a bad impression of christians is b/c people continue to act "Holyier then Thou"... which in my opinion is exactly what you are doing....
Anyway, that's it for me....
Best Regards!
Katie
Fundies: stop telling the non-fundies they are going to hell. [1] They do not believe in hell [2] do not tell them they are not going to heaven - they do not believe in heaven, either [3] your God says to show love [1 Cor 13] not tell them they are going to hell [4] In 1 Cor 4:4, the Bible says "in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." [5] If you believe God said this, know that you coming here and telling them about the Bible is not going to "open their eyes." [6] definately do not curse (cuss) them... you show your complete ignorance of your own religion
Non-fundies: You want to get rid of religion, the 'disease.' [1] Stop telling them the "Bible is bullshit." [2] My professors have said many time only "ignorant people" have a limited vocabulary and use cursing words. [3] Show you aren't "ignorant people" and stop using such words [4] show some respect, treat them as people, even if you think they are diseased [5] show morals, do not demean them: do you think demeaning them will win them to you? Cursing and demeaning awards go to: Jim Lee South2003 Ted others. Stop showing your "higher intellect" ignorance: show respect, morals, and good language.
I'd like to respond to the points you raised. Perhaps I can help to frame the issue a bit more clearly, and persuade you that the real issues lie elsewhere. Here we go:
raymartinez: "May here claim that they were Christians. If you are against Him, then you never new [sic] Him. If the people that created this site did knew Him, this site wouldn't be up."
We hear this type of thing on a daily basis from visiting Christians (sometimes many times in one day). I think it will help if we pay out what you are claiming, and what we are claiming, side-by-side.
Your claim: You have experienced god in a way that we have not. If we had had the same type of experience as you, then we would not be apostates; it would be impossible to disbelieve once you have witnessed such compelling personal evidence. Scripture assures us of this. (Is this a fair statement of your position?)
Our claim: Many apostates *HAVE* experienced god in the way that you describe. Indeed, many of the regulars here were just as devout as you (maybe even more so), believed in Christianity deeply, prayed earnestly to god, and experienced his presence powerfully. However, upon questioning the Christian dogma and studying scripture with an open mind, it became apparent (often painfully) it was no more real than the world's other religions (which we can both agree are false, right?). The personal subjective experiences were not coming from a deity, but from within.
Do you appreciate the difference between these two positions? If so, you will no doubt also appreciate that simply asserting things like "you never knew him" does not suffice. It's your personal experience against ours. How do you propose to objectively determine who is right?
raymartinez: "No matter what you do, or say, no matter how many times you mock it, the Church will be around forever..."
I actually agree with you. There will always be at least a small segment of society that will be attracted to the occult, and various religions. I think there is a good bit of evidence to support that.
raymartinez: "...because Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church."
That explanation rests upon your theology, and your claim that Jesus was divine, the Bible is god's word, etc. Clearly, we can agree on the conclusion without agreeing as to the explanation.
raymartinez: "I work on complicated 3D models and I can assure you that in order to create a simple arm that even remotely resembles a human arm takes hours to model..."
I've done complex 3D modeling (and rendering) myself. I know exactly what you mean.
raymartinez: "...You probably know where this is heading. I will give everything I own if somone can touch a button and on a computer that has a randomizer program that creates a model from this random action."
If you have a particular model in mind from the start, then clearly the odds against a randomized process arriving at it are astronomically remote. I'll assume you are aware of that. So the relevant question is whether a "randomized" process can create anything that is in some sense "complex". Again, the answer is that the odds are astronomically remote... unless we add some kind of feedback. If you drop the requirement of arriving at a specific goal, and add in feedback (e.g. through selection), then the answer is "yes". In fact, things like this are done all the time, via genetic programming, for example.
raymartinez: "It will create something that looks like nothing that we know. It won't even be able to function in a virtual world, much less in the real world. Don't forget that our arms have feel, age, heal, and that the virtual arm can't."
The first part of your statement is true. The second is false. Complex behavioral models have been developed through genetic programs that function perfectly well in virtual worlds. In fact, "artificial life" has become a branch of computer science in its own right.
raymartinez: "I have read almost anything that I can get my hands on, different philosophical approaches, and nothing has moved me like the Bible."
We have all read the Bible too. A few of my favorite saying come from the NT. However, I also recognize that the Bible is filled with ghastly violence that is condoned and perpetrated by the god that is portrayed. It's also filled with a lot of complete nonsense; things that may have made sense at the time, but are totally debunked today.
raymartinez: "I know that in my heart and my soul that it is inspired from God. If you don't have that faith, then you will try to 'find' things that are wrong with it."
Again, let me contrast your position with ours.
You: Our disagreement with the Bible is a result of WANTING it to be false. Therefore, we fail to appreciate its true meaning and/or read things into it that are not there. (Is that fair?)
Us: Looking at the Bible with an open mind, we see the absurdity of it, and see that it lacks any real historical foundation. Hence, we reject its claims.
Again, simply stating that you think the first explanation is the correct one gets us no closer to agreement on anything. We assert the latter. How do you propose we make progress?
raymartinez: "Also, if you don't have a faith in God at all, I pray for you."
We disagree with you. Your response is to petition the divine being that you believe in to.... what? Should he/she/it unilaterally intervene in our thought processes? What would you like to have happen?
raymartinez: "The bible says that the only unpardonable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit."
Yes. So if I say that I think the entire idea of a "Holy Spirit" is completely baseless; a holdover from the bronze age through the dark ages, when people understood very little about the physical world, and invented fantastic explanations involving invisible beings... Then I have committed an unpardonable blasphemy, is that right? This is so, even though I have arrived at this conclusion through honest toil, contemplation, and discussion. All the evidence that I have ever seen points in that direction. Nonetheless, the god you believe in would banish me to Hell for holding such a view. In my opinion, that is one of the most harmful aspects of your religion; it has at its base a system of threats, not honest inquiry.
raymartinez: "We all know have the 'knowledge' of God, but some people put themselves above God and make themselves above Him by not believing in Him."
Again, you simply make an assertion here. We assert something else: that this "knowledge" you speak of is really nothing more than a hope or a feeling, which is more deeply entrenched by religious dogma. Many of us have examined this "knowledge" only to find that it has no basis. You feel otherwise. How do you propose we begin to discern who is right?
raymartinez: "...I also believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God. If it has holes, it's because your faith is full of holes."
Okay, now there is an assertion we can start to examine with some objectivity. So, you assert that every word of the Bible is literally true, right? By the way, have you arrived at this conclusion by examining every work and verifying that it's true? Or is there some other axiom from which you start?
Well, I don't know if "ray" will ever come back to read this, but I'd like to point out that this is precisely what happens in the vast majority of cases when we try to engage Christian visitors. In most cases, they simply throw up their hands, even before attempting to understand a single argument issuing from our side (or, so it appears to me), and then vanish.
I'm going to state my OPINION as to why this happens, and I invite "ray" or like-minded believers to explain why I am wrong. In my view, this behavior is a result of not having been exposed to different ways of thinking. Most believers (in my experience) have little interest in examining arguments that run counter to theirs, and it's a bit of a shock for them when they find themselves in a situation where people do not automatically nod in agreement, or murmur "Amen", when they state their theological opinions. In other words, they have generally not acquired any facility with critical thinking; and this shows in the kinds of arguments they employ.
Notice that "ray", like most believers, claims (in effect) that the apostates here did not share his subjective experience, and therefore, do not possess the iron-clad evidence that he does. But ray is simply asserting that his subjective experiences trump ours, with nothing at all to support that assertion other than selected passages from his chosen holy book (which he implicitly claims has some authority, again without any evidence). Thus, we did not even get to discuss the crux of the matter with him: how one set of subjective experiences can be compared with another.
Oh well. Ray, I did attempt to engage in a civil and productive dialog with you, but it seems you were not interested. Take care.
1) "May here claim that they were Christians. If you are against Him, then you never new Him."
Let's see....okay, are you "for" or "against" the existance of the Easter Bunny? If you are "against" the existance of the Easter Bunny, does that mean that you never "new"(knew) the Easter Bunny?.....or does that mean that the Easter Bunny is "pretend"? Think HARD.
2) "The church will be around forever because Jesus said..." ah la la la laaaah.
Nope, sorry, but the church won't be around "forever" anymore than the Temple of Osiris will be around "forever". It's simple---if Christians would only use the same exact "commen sense" that they use to dismiss "Osiris"...and all of the other bazillion gods known to man, then they would see just how silly their OWN belief is. Here's the key word: S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-I-T-Y. Please study it before continuing. Thanks.
3) "The human arm is complex, therefore, it was intelligently designed."(paraphrased to save time, and to cut to the chase)
(Four year old child, to Mother) "Mommy, who created God?"
Raymond?....who created God? If a mere human arm needs an intelligent "designer", then most CERTAINLY, a "god" needs the same. Again, more circular arguments.
4) "I know that in my heart and my soul that it(the bible) is inspired from God."
Uh, no you don't. Raymond, beliefs reside in the brain, not the heart---the heart is for pumping blood. The death of the brain is the death of the "self". You cannot fathom your own non-existance. This is why you attempt to validate the absurd.
Now, since this reasoning will have no effect on you---and you still feel in "your heart" that you are "right", why don't you go find a Five Point Calvinist to argue with over which one of you is a "real Christian". In other words.....scram.
While some posters here may enjoy engaging in informal debate with the fly-by fundies, that is NOT the purpose of this site.
The purpose of this site is to give those who have left, or are leaving, Christianity a place to express themselves and thereby be encouraged that they are not alone, not condemned, and NOT WRONG.
There is much bitterness, pain, anger, and host of other emotions involved with escaping a mind-controlling cult. Some of the regulars here, like me, spent decades in the cult of Christianity. Coming to the realization that years of precious life have been wasted in a deceptive false religion can be maddening.
This site provides hurting ex-cultists an opportunity to meet other like-minded people - to rant, rave, to speak logically, illogically, and to get their frustrations off their chests, any way they need to - without a single word of condemnation from others.
Regardless of the title of this little article, a letter someone sent in, fundies are NEVER really invited to this site. Every day more fundies drop in - they just can't seem to resist it, and they never seem to restrain themselves from preaching. They rarely attempt to address the questions posed, they just parrot things, reminding me of the proverbial Polly and her famous crackers.
Let's see, if I were to barge into a church in the middle of a meeting, spouting that Jesus never really existed, and that Christians are deceived, even if the topic of the sermon were "A Challenge to Atheists" I would probably be asked to leave. If I refused to leave, the police might be called. If I still refused, chances are I'd be bloodied before too long. If I were to barge into a conversation on a Christian website, or chat-room, even if the title of the topic was "A Challenge to non-belielvers, and start spouting the benefits of atheism, I'd probably be shouted down PDQ. Don't believe me? Try it sometime, just for an experiment.
Regardless, this is our cyber-community, and no one ever leaves bloodied or hurt.
Offended? Maybe.
Bloodied? No.
By allowing free, open, sometimes confrontational, or even rude speech for ex-Christians, here in "cyber-space," most of us feel less compelled to be openly rude to the people we know and love in "meat-space." In a way, the site serves much like a relief valve.
Some of the former Christians here have Christian spouses, parents, children, consigns, employers, customers...you get the point. For them, there is virtually NOWHERE where they can openly express their frustrations with the Christian Meme Machine.
Basically, a venue for free expression by former Christians, even if offensive to you or others, is exactly why this site exists.
This isn't a country, this is a privately owned website.
Sincerely,
Dave
Your view of what the Bible does and eos nto say is skewed my friend, by your own bitter heart. Now you defile every believer, call them names, and despise them due to your own bitterness.
On point 1-
The contradictions you listed are not there, you invented them.
On point 2-
I have seen many miracles from faith in my life, even doctors know it is powerful. Yet you deny it exists and call it rubbish, a viewpoint even medical science considers rubbish. I have watched tumors disappear benath my fingers, seen fead ears opened, lame people walk, and blind people see. Your loack of fiath does not constitute faith not working. Sound to me like you have never had a mustard seed to use, and then what little there was got choked out with bitterness. Must have been either a pastor or a woman who hurt you, or perhaps both. Get your heart healed, and you will be amazed at how God 'changes', at least in your eyes.
On point 3-
You missed the entire point of Job, it ws to prove to the devil that he could not take Job's heaqrt from God, and Giod never threatened Job, the litany you described was aimed at Job's counselors, not him. You obviously need some help understanding and rightly dividing and applying portions of scripture. You might try a basic Bible school to ghelp with that.
Also, Jimmy Lee, prawns and shellfish were not to be punished with death, you are mixing different portions of scripture. But they were a no no, most theologians believe for health reasons, which most doctors would agree with. High cholesterol foods are bad for us, and God knew it. Simple.
Okay, great. Have you ever seen a severed limb regenerated? Have you even heard of such a thing happening?
Regardless, is it your faith that causes the miracles you've witnessed or is it God's grace?
It appears to me you believe it is your faith that accomplishes these great miracles. Poor sick soul that doesn't receive a miracle with you around - you'll condemn them for not having enough faith. You'll blame their sickness and disease on their lack of faith. Instead of encouragement you'll hand out guilt. On top of suffering with a disease, they'll be filled with guilt and self doubt.
Great theology you've got there!
Now, do you think that you could lay your hands on your command of the English language and perhaps heal your present disability? If not, why not?
God 'less!
Dave... I've no doubt all of what you said is true. Being taken in by a mind-controlling cult would certainly create ill emotions in all but the most cynical and jaded amongst us. From what I've read, you possess none of those traits, and I commend you for your ability to move on from that which you felt entangled. Now then... Why not give the Lord Jesus a try? Since you are free of the mind numbing aspects of those who practiced and deceived you by a false religion, you're free at last to experience our Lord's life changing Love. It is my sincere wish that you open your heart to His love. God Bless you and yours in the year ahead. In His service... Hyman Roth
I will allow though that there are older people who do know how to use "spell check" and have been saying things like "Give Jesus a try," and "God loves you" for so long that they don't realize it has no real meaning, and are just cute Christian catch phrases that they love so much. Their problem lies in the fact that they don't realize that Jesus is dead, and no one knows what God is, and if IT IS looking after it's primates here on earth IT isn't doing a very good job of it. There are literally millions of them suffering excruciating pain as we speak!
Dan
You are insulting my father and my brother and I have to respond. I will respond, and answer all you questions. If/when I see that you distort things and continue, I will have to, as they say, "shake the dust off my feet". I won't be giving up. I won't have lost. But I would have responded to you all.
When I didn't continue posting, it's due to a couple of things (and I'm sure that other Christians will understand or have gone through similar experiences as have I):
First: People have jobs and have things to do. I own two companies, both successful and located in the most competitive city in the world, and each more demanding than many people's one job. I am not a retired man working on a blog full-time.
Second: I also have a very young baby, a blessing from God, but one that gives me very little sleep. I've been running on 5 hours of sleep, if that much, for over 4 years now.
Third and most important: Saturday and Sundays are important days for me. They are days of rest and of God. Saturdays I spend with my family, helping out in church, or attending church. Same thing with Sunday. That means that I don't have all day to post responses to the full time webmaster who can respond to everything in 10 to 15 minutes and feels that his goal in his life is debunk not only Christianity, but God. Add to this a slew of his comrades who are devouring every word that is posted, and you will see why Christians don't stay long. Even when they make sense, you mock them and play with their words. Our Bible tells us that when this happens to continue on our way. Why beat a dead horse?
Have a good and pleasant Sunday. Peace.
Welcome back. Sounds like you lead a very busy life. I can relate to the lack of sleep thing. I became a father during one of the busiest times of my life too; running a perpetual sleep deficit was no fun at all. But being a father.... undescribable.
With regard to your replies (time permitting), please allow me to make some suggestions to you. You are a visitor here; the purpose of this site (as stated by the webmaster) is to support those who have already made the decision to leave Christianity, and are struggling with the various pressures and other complications that ensue. We also tend to get into debates here when professing Christians voice their opinions, and those debates often degenerate into heated exchanges, or worse. However, it *is* possible to keep it civil. In my opinion, the single most reliable predictor as to the outcome (i.e. civil vs. cut-throat) is whether the Christian visitor behaves like a guest in somebody's home, or like a sheriff with an eviction notice. (Actually, the "sheriff" analogy is much too tame, but you catch my drift.)
We are knowledgeable, compassionate, hard-working people. We (most of us) once earnestly believed some of the very same things that you do, lived it, defended it, and preached it. Most of us understand your position extremely well. But... each of us has decided that the doctrine of Christianity is simply NOT true. For some, this realization was prompted by bad experiences with the church or its parishioners, but in nearly every case that I am aware of, the final decision to leave came only after a long and often painful process of examining the religion's doctrines, asking difficult questions, and concluding that the truthful answers were not flattering to Christianity. There came a point where honesty toward one's own conclusions had to take priority. In many cases, this was a crushing experience for the person. (In my case, this happened at a very young age and it was not traumatic, so I cannot speak from personal experience about this aspect.)
So, my advice is this. If you wish to discuss things here, try to also LISTEN, and not cast aspersions at us simply because our beliefs are different from your own. Should that not work both ways, you ask? Yes, ideally it should (and some of us attempt to make it so). But this is not your house. You are a guest. You knew before entering that we disagree with you. I'll stop there.
And your problem, dano, (if you'll forgive me saying so) is that due to the gift of free will you've turned from life and all Christ died to give you. It's a terrible crime, sin that is, that's wreaked havoc upon our world. But ask, Is it truly God's fault or man's pride and greed that's caused so much of the misery in the world today. And what would you have God due in the way of caring for His primates? Have Him enter our realm and administer justice?... Fear indeed, and repent, That day is coming. HR
"You are insulting my father and my brother and I have to respond."
If we take this charge as a literal one, I would say that I only know a "Billy Martinez", and I don't believe that he is of any relation.....at least, an immediate one. If we take the charge as the personification of mythological biblical characters, then we still stand "not guilty" until objective evidence for the Christian biblegod, or, a "Trinity" in this case, is presented by "the people".
Again, here are some arguments that don't constitute objective evidence(with actual examples provided):
1) Argument for God based on pure determination.(example: "I won't be giving up. I won't have lost.")
No, you likely won't give up. That is the power of a religious conviction/meme. NOTHING will change your "mind"---yet, objective evidence will change ours. So of the two, who is "stuck"? And history shows the people can be "stuck" on invalid and erroneous beliefs.
2) Arguments based on what the bible says:(example: "Our Bible tells us that when this happens to continue on our way.")
Again, a self-proving document is not proof or evidence that anything written in it's pages is "Truth". Absolute "Truth" does not come from revelation, or hand-me-down religious dogma. Sorry.
3) Argument from "miracles": (example: "A Blessing from God.")
Any event that occurs in nature..i.e...the birth of a child, is not proof of the existance of a god. A congratulations may be in order...but please, procreation among animals is perfectly natural. Is it a "Blessing from God" when tapeworms mate and have baby tapeworms? Not hardly. Look, when a god can spontaneously "snap" a person into existance---the same way a god presumably "snapped" a "caucasian" couple into existance...y'know, like he did a few thousand years ago? lol....THEN we'll call it a "Blessing".
4) Argument from personal experience...or, a "feeling".(example: "I feel in my heart that God is real".)
The Egyptians "felt in their hearts" that Ra was real. 'Nuff said.
(not lol!)
So glad you asked. Personally speaking, I would only need such evidence in so far as if I am told that I MUST adhere to a specific belief, and/or, if said belief indicates or suggests any or all of the following:
1) I will be "punished" for not accepting said belief.(X-ian paradigm)
2) I need said belief in order to live a moral and meaningful life.(X-ian paradigm)
3) I am "lost" without said belief.(X-ian paradigm)
4) That there is absolute knowledge of an "afterlife".(X-ian paradigm)
5) That "freewill" and "omnscience" can coexist.(X-ian paradigm)
6) That "Creationism" is true. (of course...X-ian paradigm)
7) That "God" is a personal being in any way, shape, or form.(X-ian paradigm)
8) That illogical things are "logical"..i.e. 1 + 1 + 1 = 1..or, that animals and/or vegetation speak the human language.(X-ian paradigm)
9) That a book can be the inerrant word of a "god".(X-ian paradigm)
10) That I was never a believer to begin with if I reject said belief.(X-ian paradigm)
There. In the event that any or all of the above are posited as "true"---that's my personal list of reasons why I would need objective evidence of "God" in order to believe. Above and beyond that, I couldn't care less about the existance of a god. However, now that it's come this far, I defy anyone to find me any post from any visiting X-ian on this site that isn't guilty of positing at least one of the 10 points presented.
PS: If anyone wants to add to this list, feel free.
Christian Paradigm: Humanity, can't find omniscience, else, we would become gods, not acceptable by christians. If humanity, can never become omniscient, then we are always subjected to free-will thought, without ever having enough knowledge to truly rise above this plane of existence. If humanity, can never rise above its limited capacity to understand this universe, then "absolutes" aren't possible, in any form. This would be fine, except that Christians claim that their religion is "Absolutely" the only "true" religion, and their "god" is "Absolutely" the only "true" god, of the historical 4,938 available.
Its the logical hypocrisy and poor reasoning skills that usually turn me off when discussing anyting to a christian... typically, many of them don't even like discussing the matter, as they are fully aware of their illogical belief system, which they use to support illogical decisions in life... Oh, well, at least many of them support eachother financially, using money they obtain from companies/organizations. Sad though, this means there are companies that have employees who don't think rationally... All one can hope, is that these people are not the same ones who work in places where high levels of awareness, and critical thinking are required. ;-) Take it easy...
IF I knew what God was, I would not be so egotistical to presume to know IT'S reasons for creating, sin, devils, evil, survival of the fittest, disease, starvation, birth defects, ugly people, dumb people, idiots, or for that matter everything, and anything.
I can only have faith that IT knew what it was doing when IT gave me the ability for rational thought, and left you wallowing in ancient pagan mysticism! Perhaps you were insulated from reality too long, perhaps had wealth, maybe were successful in business. For some reason you didn't get out of the cult soon enough, and now you are so invested that is impossible.
The only difference it will make though is you will spend the remainder of your life here on earth spouting Christian "catch phrases," and I am free to let you know with certainty that neither one of us knows any more about God or the afterlife than the other. Neither does any man or woman on earth. YET!
(See boomSLANGs list above)
Dan
"And your problem, dano, (if you'll forgive me saying so) is that due to the gift of free will you've turned from life and all Christ died to give you. It's a terrible crime, sin that is, that's wreaked havoc upon our world. But ask, Is it truly God's fault or man's pride and greed that's caused so much of the misery in the world today. And what would you have God due in the way of caring for His primates? Have Him enter our realm and administer justice?... Fear indeed, and repent, That day is coming" HR
posted: 2/12/2006 10:52 AM EST
Hyman, The number one source of conflict in the world today is: "My God is better than your God" The Muslims don't pussy foot around about it either. Their book tells them, clearly that anyone who is not a Muslim must convert or die, period.
There are some beliefs though that don't preach FEAR and HATE, but Islam and Christianity seem to be almost equal in that respect.
Dan
Please forgive me for butting into this conversation, but I'd really like to respond to the comments you made to Dan. You assert that free will is a gift from some deity. If we reject that premise, then your argument falls apart. So, what evidence do you have that free will is a "gift" from a deity? That question is logically prior to your statement, is it not?
HR: "It's a terrible crime, sin that is, that's wreaked havoc upon our world."
Not believing in your deity is a crime? Is that really what you mean? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Is it really a crime to make the best judgment that you can, based on what evidence is available? Would it be a crime, for example, to not believe in Zeus, or Mithra, or Krishna, or Osiris if one felt that there was insufficient evidence to warrant such a belief? If not, then please explain why it is different for your god.
HR: "But ask, Is it truly God's fault or man's pride and greed that's caused so much of the misery in the world today."
Well, I think that's a pretty easy question. Given the choice between laying the blame at man's feet, and the feet of a being I have no reason to believe exists, I'll take the former.
HR: "And what would you have God due [do?] in the way of caring for His primates?"
Well, here is what *I* would do if I were god. Now, don't expect my answer to match what some hypothetical being would do. I would 1) either allow my creations to work things out for themselves, or make it very clear what I wished for them to do. In any case, I would not whisper ambiguous messages into the ear of a few prophets, or stage a stunt like having myself killed and claim that it was for their benefit. Especially since so many previous false "gods" and "prophets" did similar things; it would be asking for massive confusion. Then I would 2) see to it that no innocent people (particularly children) suffered as a result of disease, famine, war, natural disasters, criminal acts, freak accidents, etc. I would also 3) demonstrate for my creations the behavior I would wish to see, rather than sending plagues, commanding massacres, hardening people's hearts, etc. I could go on and on. In short, I would steer way clear of the reprehensible behavior of the god of Abraham. But then, someone else may bring different skills to the job.
HR: "Have Him enter our realm and administer justice?... "
Sure, but that would be up to him/her/it, wouldn't it? I said what *I* would do above. Your mileage may differ, depending on which deity you happen to believe in. But if there was such a being, and it decided that it wanted to communicate with us, I have a hard time believing that it would stuff things up to the extent that the (imaginary) god of Abraham has.
HR: "...Fear indeed, and repent, That day is coming."
Oh, okay. If your argument is nonsense to me, you nonetheless wish for me (us) to accept it out of fear. Well, I have never in my life seen a belief worth adopting that was backed by any kind of intimidation. In fact, I'd say that such a tactic is almost universally the hallmark of a weak or totally vacuous argument.
Sorry man, but that's almost to f-ing rich for words. What's next, the infamous lefty comparison of Bush to Hitler? That patented knee-JERK response that shows a total disregard for an entire generation of European Jews, not to mention a dumb-ass ignorance of recent world history. Your comparison of Islam to Christianity within the modern world is laughable, were it not so pitiful.
Those who value death above physical life, are equal, no matter what label you paint on their forehead.
Christian KJV Bible:
Acts 3:23 - "Every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."
***Peter claims, Dt.18:18-19 in reference to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed.
Quran: The Cow
"2:114 And who doth greater wrong than he who forbiddeth the approach to the sanctuaries of Allah lest His name should be mentioned therein, and striveth for their ruin. As for such, it was never meant that they should enter them except in fear. Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom."
"2:121 Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers."
"2:126 And when Abraham prayed: My Lord! Make this a region of security and bestow upon its people fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day, He answered: As for him who disbelieveth, I shall leave him in contentment for a while, then I shall compel him to the doom of Fire - a hapless journey's end!"
"2:171 The likeness of those who disbelieve (in relation to the messenger) is as the likeness of one who calleth unto that which heareth naught except a shout and cry. Deaf, dumb, blind, therefore they have no sense."
"2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers."
***Hence why Muslims retreat to mosques, they fight unbelievers once they are attacked within the walls.
"2:286 Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved. Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget, or miss the mark! Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as thou didst lay on those before us! Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we have not the strength to bear! Pardon us, absolve us and have mercy on us, Thou, our Protector, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk."
Well, anonymous, both the Jews per the OT, the Christians per the OT/NT, and the Muslims per the Quran, have words in a book that they in fact, can use to support murder, and maltreatment for those who do not believe as they do. So, what's your point.
Anonymous of 8:19 sounds like a dittohead.
The only thing I can tell you is that since becoming a follower of Jesus I have over time become less bitter, less quick to anger, less stressed out and more at peace and loving.
The only explanation is The Holy Spirit living in me. And yes, I'm still a sinner who needs forgiveness daily.
If you choose to call it blissful ignorance or blind faith, or even something a little more "colorful", so be it.
I'll just call it the wonder of a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus. Praise God! Please seek him earnestly and don't let your heart become hardened.
GB,
Jack from North Carolina
reachthetriad.com
Your "personal" experience with a "Holy Spirit"(with much emphasis on the word "personal") is nothing new to us. Hey, speaking of "words"---surely you saw the prefix "EX" on the word "Ex-Christian", right?
Have a great day.
I hope every person gets to meet Jesus, and I hope you will not be too disappointed to find out that you've been taken for a grand hoax.
Jesus just happened to be a pawn in the biggest scheme and hoax that the world has ever known. Jesus was born out of wedlock, a bastard child, Joseph never knew who's child it was, and was afraid to ask. because it was better that he did not know, because he and Mary would have been stoned to death. Mary was raped by her priest at the age of 13, she never knew what sex was about, she had no reason to, but her kindly God called preacher knew, much more than her, he coaxed Mary into the back room of the church and told her that he was going to initiate her into the kingdom of God, and she would receive a blessing from god and she therefore let him inseminate her with his holy immaculate sperm, BTW, you will not hear this story anywhere else, because it's not meant to be known, now 4 wks. later Mary has a problem, morning sickness and missed her period, she goes to the church and the preacher says it's her gift from god, and it was an Angel that planted the baby inside, that she should rejoice that she got her blessing, but she knew it was not from an Angel or a god, but she could not tell Joseph, nor could she publickly blame the preacher, because they would have all been stoned to death, that very day, she had to go with the inseminated by an Angel scheme, that was the only way she and Joseph could have survived from being stoned to death.
Now Jesus was told from the very day that he was born, that he was sent from god, he had no choice but to believe it himself, in the end, Jesus was MURDERED, not sacrificed!!! Murdered!!! Since when is crucification, NOT MURDER????
Jack they used to sacrifice Lambs, goats, etc, and blood let for the atonement of sins from this monsterous angry god in the sky, were talking 2000 years ago, see any resemblance between Jesus, the Lamb of God and blood atonement for sins? Huh? Huh? I do, but I know you do not.
Lets continue in KJV:
Then on the 9th hour, Jesus cried out, Mark ch.29 vs 46, My God, My God, Why has thou forsaken me?
Why would a person disquised as a God, cry out to himself to save himself, unless of course none of it's true.
Yeah Jack just walk around with your lucky charm Jesus in your pocket all your life and you'll be safe, just remember Allah said that Jesus was a fraud, and unless you believe that Allah is the only god, you will burn in Hell for eternity, I wish you well Jack, but you are a brainwashed fundy just like multimillions of Americans are and Muslims too.
This is the unwanted truth that many christians wished they had never heard, it exposes the christian faith for what it is, a lie and a hoax, this information is was meant to be kept away from christians, Jesus can not help anyone, not even his own self, he found out on the cross that he'd been had, a stooly, set up by his own mother. Jesus was the victim of an elaborate hoax.
Uh, you appear to have poor math skills. Not that I am a utilitarianist, but, your reverse logic, where ethically, you feel the needs of the few far outweigh the needs of the many seems absurd - unless the few are narcissistic.
Regarding Bush and Hitler, or leaders in general. It took a U.S. leader with allied support, to remove Hitler. Hitler's defeat by the allies drove him to commit suicide. I suppose you consider the death of Hitler by the pressures presented by allied support, to be somehow "equal" to the 11 Million people that were killed due to his racial policies during his reign.
A mother will protect her child if attacked, and if it ends in the death of an attacker, then I suppose you blame the mother because she had it coming.
All acts of killing are not equal either, physically speaking, one death does equal one death. However, some killings seem to be a little more naturally accepted in some cases rather than others. A mother killing an attacker who threatens her child, may in fact kill, however, that is called protecting and self-defense and is naturally understood. A person, killing to take over the world, like Hitler, who was an aggressor/political expansionist, and not a defender, is seen by many as deserving of justifiable death.
Its natural to defend ones' life, and the lives of those who we bond with. Its also natural to be somewhat territorial and be drawn into acts which pull leaders/people to engage in acts of aggression, using instruments of power. However, defending ones' life, and the lives of international citizens at peace, seem to be far more acceptable by many, than by attempting to engage in territorial occupation operations by killing mass numbers of people.
I suppose white blood cells are comitting murder, when they engage foreign occupants who are attempting to infect and kill the living host. There can be a cancer in a global society, and there is the natural tendency to want to rid a global society of infection. If foreign cells, and cancer cells were allowed to have free reign in a living hosts body, because the rest of the organism just couldn't come to terms with the appropriate actions to take, then, we would obviously not have to worry about a population boom anytime soon. Sometimes, it takes looking at the 'whole' body, to actually see the bigger picture, and not just stare at a few cells who have extremely short life spans.
The formula is simple, if it hurts the whole, then it probably isn't good, if it helps the whole with acceptance of minor aches and pains, then, its probably a good thing for the long run. Some just seem to get wrapped up, with which part of the body should be absorbing the ache or pain, but that requires load balancing, and, I am willing to discuss that matter if anyone wants to explore global or international control mechanisms.
You may have a point. Cartoons mocking Jesus doesn't generally result in violence in today's world, but perhaps a more fair comparison would be today's Islam versus 11th through 17th Century Christianity.
If we compare the violence in Christianity in those centuries to the Islamic violence now, then I think we'd be seeing two sides of the same coin.
It's just a good thing modern weapons weren't in the hands of those eariler era Christinas. Unfortunately those weapons are in the hands of today's Muslims.
Lefty? Well, all-righty.
Need I mention the "Patriot Act", or the "Project for a New American Century"?
"Not as tyrants have we come, but as Liberators" - Hitler
You wouldn't be so dumb-ass ignorant of world history as to not know about how Prescott Bush was head of several major corporations funding the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, all charged in 1942 with "trading with the enemy" and having all their assets siezed?
"...That patented knee-JERK response that shows a total disregard for an entire generation of European Jews, not to mention a dumb-ass ignorance of recent world history."
Yes. Never again
...unless you're a Palestinian.
Dave8: Those who value death above physical life, are equal, no matter what label you paint on their forehead.
Whitey: Fascinating perspective D, you'll have to relay that to Jill Carroll, providing she makes it back to the US with her had securely fashioned about her shoulders. I'm betting she won't. But given the option of being held by her current captors or a bunch of Baptists---- I'm sure she'd choose to sing Amazing Grace than profess Allah as the greatest toon since Homer Simpson.
Anonymous: Do you really deem that to be fair? How so? Last check... it's 2006. What's next... judge the performance of Michelle Kwan in this Olypmpiad by how well she skated 4 years ago? Let's keep it in the here and now, or would you forever wish to be judged by how you behaved in your 20's... or, at say, 15.
As if I give a rats ass! So what did I win? Pay up.
I think the reason Christianity is less violent today in comparison with past centuries is because it has been watered down by modern education - liberalized, if you will.
The liberal (watered down) Isms of Islam aren't violent either. Unfortunately those more mild versions are in the minority.
My comparison is not only fair, it's completely accurate. Religion, ultimately, is about power - power over the minds of men, women, children and even whole nations.
Let's take a good look at Calvin's Geneva, and after we've done that, let's check to see if any but the most fanatical Reconstructionist Christians would ever want to live under that kind of bondage.
When Christianity had the most opportunity to change the world, Christianity enslaved the world in ignorance. It was called the Dark Ages.
Islam is still enduring its own version of the Dark Ages, that's all.
Christianity condemns all who disbelieve to eternal torment in horrific agony. In this regard the two competing world relgions are in the same century. Human life is meaningless to Christian and Muslim alike, if that life isn't clutching tightly to the correct form of the right religion.
Don't think so? Every day some Christian on this site expresses the view that without Christ, life has no meaning.
I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians say, "If this is all there is, then why not commit suicide?"
Physical life is basically valuless to the Christian - only spiritual life matters.
And remember the hell threat. Alwasy threats - always.
Answer this ex-Christian
1) If it doesn't mean shit to you then why are you persuing the subject?
By all means, believe what you like.
I will answer your question with a question, just like your man-god: Why does it bother you that we spend our time pursuing this topic?
Shouldn't you be out somewhere winning the lost? We are apostates, and as every Bible-worshipper knows, apostates are a lost cause.
I wonder why ex-JWs and ex-Mormons and ex-Muslims and ex-whatevers would pursue a topic that reveals the fallacies of their once strongly held convictions...could it be to help those wishing to be freed from bondage?
Nah, all of us ex's just hate these various versions of a god so we can live out our fantasies of unbridled lust perhaps bring damage to some version of the Kingdom.
What a stupid question and asinine assumption about motivations.
I spent 30 years chasing the fantasy of Christianity, and leading others into that mind-numbed state. I only hope I'll help a few to counter all the mantal anguish I caused by trapping others in the cult of Christianity. I earn no jewels in a crown, no special place in heaven and no pat on the back for my efforts here.
Why do you preach, and preach, and preach, and preach, and preach? Is it for reward or for concern for you fellow humans? Be honest! If you had NO heaven to look forward to, would you still have the motivation to lead others into your cult?
I think not...
Jill Carroll is the only one who can support her reasons for entering a conflict. She must have felt compelled enough to believe that her actions meritted the risk to her life. However, she freely entered that area knowing that many people in that region, value death more than life. Speaking about terrorism, and chopping off body parts with machetes...
**********************************************************************
Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established.
There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery.
By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate.
The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..."
More recently the BBC aired:
Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
BBC NEWS April 19, 1998
A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...
**********************************************************************
Dave8: Those who value death above physical life, are equal, no matter what label you paint on their forehead.
Lets see, cutting off heads and declaring Jihad for Islam on the one hand. Or, torturing your victims, and finally pouring petral on them and their families and lighting them on fire, so they can watch each other toast, as their eyes liquify from the heat.
Its hard for me to draw some grand distinction between lopping off heads for the greater glory of Allah, or slaughtering innocent women, children, while bowed in front of a cross while they roast.
It all seems pretty medieval to me, not much changing in the past few thousand years. Again, those who value death as more beneficial than life, because they gain; political, ideological, monetary, spiritual, etc. benefits, all seem to be capable of the most gross atrocities. The only thing that separates people, who hold these values, is their commitment to act upon their beliefs.
See above post, seems your Gs-ass and a lot of religious followers have really sensitive yes/no switches. Too many just seem to flip or blow a fuse, and innocent people are tortured as a result.
Why wouldn't someone keep their attention focused on a group who is capable of so much murder and atrocity towards humanity. You get religious leaders who stand back and blame the religious followers, in order to remove themselves from culpability. Then, they continue to preach the same doctrine that supports the atrocities - how convenient.
So guys, commi si comma sa... I'll go -- and go happily, mind you --with God. Whitey
As far as errors in the bible, let's not forget how 2 Kings chapter 19 and Isaiah 37 are nearly identical, word for word. The remainders of those books are quite different save for the occasional similarity. How does one explain this? At the very least, we have here a dishonest author falsely proclaiming the writings of another as their own. It's really quite a mystery as to how this may have occurred, and clearly a major error in the text.
Rory Carrol, Africa correspondent Tuesday September 21, 2004 @ The Guardian
"A decade after allegedly bulldozing his church to crush parishioners cowering inside, a Rwandan priest went on trial for genocide yesterday at the United Nations war crimes tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.
Athanase Seromba is accused of helping Hutu extremists to herd 2,000 Tutsis into the Roman Catholic church in Nyange, Rwanda, before demolishing the walls and roof. Survivors were stabbed, clubbed or shot."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1308922,00.html
Oh, don't forget to identify father Seromba as Anastasio Sumba Bura, after he fled the country with the help of the Vatican, who helped aid him, and change his identity.
Well, lets see if we have a credible witness to the atrocities, we can cite, shall we.
"The Church cannot be held responsible for the guilt of its members" - Pope John Paul II
http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/backgr_cross_genocide.htm
Is the pope a good source, or would you like a DVD showing the slaughter and all parties involved.
"On 7 May 1994 soldiers and militias arrived at Shyogwe Diocese aboard a red pick-up vehicle to transport civilian Tutsi refugees to the killing sites. "On that day Bishop Samuel Musabyimana was present and, addressing the soldiers and militias, publicly stated that he did not oppose the killing of Tutsis, but that he did not want killings at the Diocese and that the Tutsis should be taken to Kabgayi to be killed." (Indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda against former Anglican Bishop Samuel Musabyimana)."
"On 22 April 1994, Séraphine Mukamana had hidden herself in a garage when militias attacked a convent in Sovu in southern Rwanda. "We sought refugee in the garage and closed and barricaded the doors. Outside a bloodbath is going on. Suddenly an orphan begins to weep as it gets to hot in the garage. At once, the killers approach the garage." As the refugees refuse to come out, the militia leader Emmanuel Rekeraho decides to burn them alive in the garage. "'The nuns are coming to help us. They are bringing gasoline,' I heard [Rekeraho] say. Looking through a hole that the militiamen meanwhile had made in the wall, I indeed saw Sister Gertrude and Sister Kisito. The latter was carrying a petrol can. Shortly upon that, the garage is set on fire." Testimony against two Catholic nuns, Sisters Gertrude and Maria Kisito in a Brussels court, May 2001."
"Archbishop Augustin Nshamihigo and the coadjutor Bishop of Kigali, Jonathan Ruhumuliza, were seen describing the government responsible for orchestrating the genocide as "peace-loving" at a Nairobi press conference in early June 1994. The accusations against clergy of the Free Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Seventh-Day Adventist Churches are equally shocking. According to survivors, Bishop Aaron Ruhumuliza, head of the Free Methodist Church in Gikondo, Kigali, helped the militia carry out a massacre in his own church on 9 April 1994. Michel Twagirayesu, the President of the Presbyterian Church of Rwanda and a former vice-president of the World Council of Churches, is alleged to have worked closely with the killers in the Presbyterian stronghold of Kirinda, Kibuye, betraying parishioners and fellow-clergy alike, according to a report by African Rights."
Gee, Whitey, must be a pretty big conspiracy, want more names, and public conferences, where these religious clergy show their "pride" for their "genocide".
"It seemed all a repetition of the Churches' role in the Nazi Holocaust. All congregations had their perpetuators, but also their heroes hiding Jews from the Nazi killing machinery. Protestant congregations however showed genuine remorse and shame over their failures during the Nazi dictatorship. The Vatican - the Pope at that time still being suspected of cooperating with the Fascists and Nazis - on the other hand still finds it difficult to admit guilt. It is symptomatic that the parts of the Vatican archives that could cast light on the Pope's involvement with Nazi Germany still remain closed to historians.
The genocide shook all the Christian churches, and provoked reactions of confessing guilt by most of them. Protestant congregations mostly asked Rwandans pardon for the atrocities committed by their members and excommunicated members suspected of forming part of the genocide. Anglican Bishop Samuel Musabyimana immediately was excommunicated as the charges against him were known."
If you need more information, from the thousands of possible sources, let me know. I'm sure its all just a big misunderstanding, right Whitey, the world has just been consipiring for a few thousand years against the christian faith, and your god, I mean, it just couldn't be the religious doctrine itself or the religious leaders, right.
1. When it comes to problems with Christianity, are the issues generally against leaders and other attenders in the church?
2. As far as the Bible is concerned, I know that many have tried to explain the Bible's "errors" as being "mistranslations" or 'figurtive" (don't you hate it when people put quotes around things?)
I have found it not really annoying, but more counter productive when christians come to a web-site like this and use some sort of experience to try proving someone else wrong. As has been stated on this blog and all throughout this website, there are many here that have been in the church. Many of you have heard the surface fluff of Christianity, religion, and personal experience.
I will say that many christians do not provide a logical answer to those that have had questions or problems with those in leadership.
I think that God can handle any question a person has for him. I do not think that a man can simply wear down God's patience for an answer.
Yet, if God did really create this place, surely then there shouldn't be much trouble explaining why things are the way they are.
My biggest problem with christians, ex-christians, Atheists, and whatever else, is that they focus too much on their own argument and they do not listen to those around them.
I realize that this website attracts the ex-christian (obvious statement)yet it also draws christians (the fanatical, fundamental or otherwise).
Is it really likely that a calm, rational and logical conversation can take place on a website?
-I.S.
1. When it comes to problems with Christianity, are the issues generally against leaders and other attenders in the church?
2. As far as the Bible is concerned, I know that many have tried to explain the Bible's "errors" as being "mistranslations" or 'figurtive" (don't you hate it when people put quotes around things?)
I have found it not really annoying, but more counter productive when christians come to a web-site like this and use some sort of experience to try proving someone else wrong. As has been stated on this blog and all throughout this website, there are many here that have been in the church. Many of you have heard the surface fluff of Christianity, religion, and personal experience.
I will say that many christians do not provide a logical answer to those that have had questions or problems with those in leadership.
I think that God can handle any question a person has for him. I do not think that a man can simply wear down God's patience for an answer.
Yet, if God did really create this place, surely then there shouldn't be much trouble explaining why things are the way they are.
My biggest problem with christians, ex-christians, Atheists, and whatever else, is that they focus too much on their own argument and they do not listen to those around them.
I realize that this website attracts the ex-christian (obvious statement)yet it also draws christians (the fanatical, fundamental or otherwise).
Is it really likely that a calm, rational and logical conversation can take place on a website?
-I.S.
You said, "Doods we are all gonnah fucking die..." and, "if it doesn't mean shit...why are you persuing the subject?"
Are we to believe, then, that everybody who has ever lived is destined to burn in eternal torment (the implication being that one will remain there forever) because of the "sins" of Adam and Eve, and because of the "sins" that we commit having "forgotten" our "divine heritage," from "whence we have fallen," naturally inclined towards the "pleasures of the flesh," thus displeasing God who then, again, "casts" ones "soul" into "hell (eternal torment)" until finally God devises a "Plan"" of "salvation," sending "'His' (sexist) only begotten Son, Jesus," who, somehow, is both God and Jesus, to die the most horrible death one can imagine so that God will forgive humans, but only those who "accept Jesus," and allow them into "heaven" instead of "casting" them into hell? This concept reminds me of ancient volcano Gods being worshipped by primitive islanders believing that they must throw some poor virgin into the volcano occasionally in order to satisfy their God. What kind of God demands a human sacrifice? That is ridiculous. Meanwhile, let's not forget those poor souls who are burning in hell for having been born before Jesus arrived (I guess he was a little late.) And the ones who never heard of Jesus. The only christian answer I know of to this little dilemna in christian theology is that those souls condemned before Jesus came and those who never heard of him will be given a chance to "accept Jesus" on "judgement day," and until then, they must be burning in hell. So God would fry them into submission, I suppose. Is that what you want us to believe?
I think christian theology is absurd.
On that note, why thank God for what one has, when one must work for what one has and work is a curse resulting from the sin of Adam? It's like being enslaved and instructed to be thankful for it or else "perish," of course. By God.
But, oh, Jesus will return any day now, any minute now, see the signs, they're all around, just the way that they've always been (wars, rumours of wars, plagues, natural disasters, etc..) human kind will master these matters before christ ever returns, but then, he was late the first time too, and by the way, according to the gospels, he was to have returned two thousand years ago and did not, and so on, and so on...
Rory Carrol, Africa correspondent Tuesday September 21, 2004 @ The Guardian
Whitey (in an equally sarcastic tone, cause, hey, Why not? When visiting the ex-christian site, why not join in their pomposity?) Gee Dave, would that be The UK's Guardian, or the little indie that goes to press in Nigeria? Well no matter, I'm sure the atrocities are even worse than the Western mind can fathom. So what else is new? Ours is a dismal record over 10,000 years of recorded history. And of what concern is that for me? I'm powerless to prevent such goings on... in that I'm not an African magistrate, nor am I a soldier for hire, or a politician or other individual of influence. I'm just one man, who generally speaking will live and die and be judged alone by that knowledge and light that God deemed for me to receive. I've made my choice, my friend. Now whether you believe the same responsibility befalls you is entirely up to you. I hope you choose wisely. 'W'... but not the 'W'... the one you choose to despise along with everyone else choosing a Godly path.
Whitey, are you saying every single ex-Christian visitor to this site is pompous - every single one? And are you also saying that your behavior is justified by the behavior of others?
Hmm.
Well, regardless of your opinion on that or anything else, this is a privately owned website set up to encourage and support former Christians. You are basically an uninvited guest at our party. If you don't like the theme, or the company, you don't have to stay.
Sincerely,
Dave
You definately are not winning Christians away from their 'disease' (i.e. religion). I have been coming here for quite some time, but the more ignorant you are the more I want to be an ignorant Christian. You just do not set an example for Christian's to leave their religion. Why would they want to leave something that teaches them to be respectful and polite when you act like such a jerk... they won't.
No one can convince you to leave christianity, except yourself. The only way to accomplish this is to become a critical thinker and one who wishes to HONESTLY learn history! Please try to enlighten yourself!
To paraphrase a christian saying, god only helps those who help themselves! In other words its up to you and you alone.
No one here is trying get anyone to leave their religion. Do what you want, but keep the SHIT out of my face and my childrens face!
Have a nice day. Read a book.
At the risk of plagarizing fundamentalism: Ex-Christians aren't perfect, they're just no longer deluded.
Helloooo Teeter, I don't have a religion an no god beliefs. Your ignorance is speaking if you think being an Atheist is a form of a religion, so to inform you A-hole, I don't have the slimy need to "convert" anyone and to what? -I’m not here to “win” souls or set an example for the Christians to leave their religion…they will leave it on their own when they’ve realized that it’s all bullshit (oops I cussed). So please do what want and I will also. Ok.
And this "teaching how to be respectful and polite" is about what...don’t you ever in your life time tell me how to fucking control my tongue – I will express myself freely REGARDLESS if you like it or NOT - now respect that.
Gosh, as if we asked this nut to pycho analize us.
Now... as to Dave the WM... am I saying you are all, without exception, behaving pompously by disallowing the thought of someone or something higher than man? Yeah, probably. How could one not make that observation? If man exalts man above all else--- Pride does enter in. You admitted just recently (plagarized, actually lol) that ex-christians are not perfect. Well... there ya go. The same, incidentally, holds true of Christians assaulting others with their perception of Truth.
As for me? Don't ask: Whitey's perfect, don't ya know.
Enlighten me Whitney, illustrate to me I beg of you how ones belief in a hierarchy (be that God or whatever in time space continuum beyond the present realm) can enhance the quality of life.
Whitney, you are beginning to be a troll! The difference between you and I is that I tell it like it is. If you and the rest of your Christians cronies don’t like then hit the X.
Lata fundie
Disallowing? Who is disallowing anything? If you, or anybody else, has some grand idea about this or some other realm, then by all means let's hear what you've got. However, I will not simply take your word for it; I will ask for evidence and/or a compelling argument as to why your view is correct. That latter condition seems to be taken as a mean-spirited assault by many when it is applied to Christianity, for some reason, but the alternative is simply dreadful; to be so credulous as to accept anything that sounds or feels good, independent of evidence or reason.
Whitney: "How could one not make that observation?"
By framing the question correctly. By first understanding the position you attack.
Whitney: "If man exalts man above all else--- Pride does enter in...."
That's probably a straw man. Who are you asserting "exalts man above all else," and do you think they would agree with that phrasing? To me it's the greatest irony that Christians see non-believers as somehow egotistical because they do not believe in the god of Abraham. What could be more egocentric than the view that the entire universe was created with man, god's special creature, at its center? Science, on the other hand, tells us that we are the inhabitants of a tiny speck orbiting an average star, in an average galaxy, and that we share nearly every attribute with other living things on this planet. This life is not a test, nor is it the prelude to some fantastic afterlife; it is the one life we have, just like every other organism on this planet.
You are entitled to any belief you see fit; but when you begin to disparage others for not adopting your belief, particularly when you seem to have no compelling evidence, and apparently have little understanding of our position (e.g. what it consists in, and how we arrived at it), then you open yourself to criticism. Consider your wrist slapped.
I leave for a while, come back, and Whitey is still hitting the keys. At the risk of sounding pompous, you said you had little energy, me thinks, that would be the energy for critical analysis, as you seem to have quite a lot of energy to make comment without the research on the back-end. You suggest that god gave you knowledge and light, but you obviously can't be an African Magistrate, nor a mercenary, nor a politician or anyone with influence. Tell me Whitey, were you taught to be self-debilitating, you've basically stated that you were given the ability to receive knowledge, but you have no ability to apply that information in an influential manner to anyone. How ironic you are on this site, trying to be influential. Do you currently see yourself as a politician, soldier for god, magistrate for humanity, or what.
Whitey: "I've made my choice, my friend. Now whether you believe the same responsibility befalls you is entirely up to you. I hope you choose wisely. 'W'... but not the 'W'... the one you choose to despise along with everyone else choosing a Godly path."
Oh, Whitey, are you attempting to strategize, how clever. The divide and conquor tactic, using "W", is sorely transparent, a little more subtlety and you may have gotten me to move en passant [sic], as you play the gambit.
Since you have mentioned some divine plan, or godly path, you have encumbered a zugzwang [sic]. Set your lateral limits; post what a "godly plan" would consist of, in a logical and organized manner, and perhaps we can go further in this conversation.
How does a finite mind, according to christianity, encounter or even behold an infinite source's enlightenment. Perhaps, you are creating the 'thought' of an omniscient being with a plan, with your limited mind..., is that possible. Of course, you could always suggest that humanity has the potential to become omniscient and thus gods in their own rite... or, does that seem to not be acceptable. Such a dilemna, let me know what your limited/finite and unpersuasive mind comes up with, it should be enlightening...
To reiterate, from an entry days ago, "I've made my choice, my friend. Now whether you believe the same responsibility befalls you is entirely up to you."
There it is...I don't believe it can be clearer. And it doesn't require a crumb of critical analysis to understand -- or disregard, if that's what you deem fit. Once again, D, the choice is yours.
Forgive me, 8, but so much of what you had to say in response flew right over me. I've probably not had the education you had, and as I mentioned earlier, I'm not a man who was born to, or attained to, any lofty position of power or influence in this life. What is it (pardon the query), that you do? Are you on the cutting edge of an important enterprise that I may've heard or read about in The Guardian (wink) or elsewhere. Or are you biding your time here with the rest of us lonelyhearts?
I'll no doubt be occupied for a time, searching for definitions and meaning to the some of the words and concepts you applied in your last---- Or maybe it's better to recall Lear, "Tis better to walk with kings and not lose sight of the common man."
Get it?
Well said.
But you left out that it does require a lack of critical analysis to accept.
Point of order Whitey;
Whitey: "Fascinating perspective D, you'll have to relay that to Jill Carroll, providing she makes it back to the US with her had securely fashioned about her shoulders. I'm betting she won't. But given the option of being held by her current captors or a bunch of Baptists---- I'm sure she'd choose to sing Amazing Grace than profess Allah as the greatest toon since Homer Simpson."
You used Jill Carroll as a pawn, in an attempt to stratify violence levels among differing religious groups. My response wasn't pretentious, as I asked you for confirmation using some critical analysis.
Being asked to provide some logical foundation for your opinion, is not necessarily an aggression against your right to an opinion, its to expose your level of thought on the matter. So, that others, may weigh your words accordingly.
Whitey: "That would seem rather preposterous, considering all I brought to the table thus far was a personal belief system, key word: personal. I've not tried to foist it on you or anyone, and therefore I'm not compelled to be defending it to the death, however noble that might sound. But maybe you're right, maybe laziness is at the core of this after all. lol"
If you want to portray your point of view and exercise your free speech, then perhaps finding a web site, or better yet, standing up your own web site is the best venue. I suppose you could always write an article to a newspaper, draw a few cartoons, and see if they are willing to publish. This web site is for those who are seeking truth, in what they have found through experience regarding religion. Those who seek truth, by self research, are typically not lazy, as they have found enough energy to critically inspect information.
Whitey: "To reiterate, from an entry days ago, "I've made my choice, my friend. Now whether you believe the same responsibility befalls you is entirely up to you."
What is striking about that comment, is you allude that you don't need a foundation for your belief, but then, say humanity has a responsibility to "make choices". How does one make choices, Whitey, some use logical thought, and others just follow others without the need to think. That would be fine, I know a lot of people who play follow the leader in religion, however, your argument that "we" have a responsibility to make choices, comes from "where", what authority? Why wouldn't you support the notion to become the ultimate lazy person, and not even make choices in life, just vegetate.
Whitey: "There it is...I don't believe it can be clearer. And it doesn't require a crumb of critical analysis to understand -- or disregard, if that's what you deem fit. Once again, D, the choice is yours."
Right, an opinion doesn't have to be blindly accepted, got it. Sometimes, logic and structure are just begging to be part of the commentary though. Our linguistic framework itself is logically dependent, is it not.
Whitey: "Forgive me, 8, but so much of what you had to say in response flew right over me. I've probably not had the education you had, and as I mentioned earlier, I'm not a man who was born to, or attained to, any lofty position of power or influence in this life."
Appealing to ignorance, and those who would choose to see life accordingly. Forgive the analysis Whitey, but if you were truly uneducated, we wouldn't be corresponding, you have shown the ability to read, write (type), and formulate a logical thought. Further, you have the ability to research, as you have full access to the internet, doesn't seem to be an economic barrier for you. You influence life, because you live on this planet, period, its not a choice Whitey, you only control the degree of impact you make in other peoples' lives. So, you don't appear to be the common, commoner after all, your voice seems to have found its way onto an international scene via the web. Hence, you are in a lofty position, because you have the ability to communicate to the masses, you just don't have authority of the communication mechanism or the political base to control those who own the communication mechanisms.
Whitey: "What is it (pardon the query), that you do? Are you on the cutting edge of an important enterprise that I may've heard or read about in The Guardian (wink) or elsewhere. Or are you biding your time here with the rest of us lonelyhearts?"
Ah, the Freudian appeal to my ego ;-), well, sorry to disappoint Whitey, I am as common as you, well, perhaps, our knowledge bases are somewhat different, I do love to read and research.
Whitey: "I'll no doubt be occupied for a time, searching for definitions and meaning to the some of the words and concepts you applied in your last----"
Google, use define function. For instance... Whitey appears to be magniloquent. If you want to know what magniloquent means, type "define magniloquent" or just go to www.dictionary.com. Regarding the contruction of concepts, if the words are understood, then it would seem that you are half way home.
Whitey: "Or maybe it's better to recall Lear, "Tis better to walk with kings and not lose sight of the common man. Get it?"
Actually, Whitey, I don't recall Lear using that specific quote. So, why don't you convey your thought, in more "common" terms, so that I may regard you accordingly.
I've no problem at all with what you just wrote, and I'm confident that most of the regulars here have no problem with it either. We often remind visitors that they are 100% free to believe whatever they want, and for whatever reasons, be they subjective or objective. (It's an entirely different matter, of course, if their intention is to convince others of what they say; in that case reason is paramount.)
However... if you have no intention of defending your ideas, what's the point of even mentioning them here? If I have a strong opinion on the correct way to bake a casserole, that doesn't automatically mean that it's worth my time or anybody else's to announce it; particularly if that opinion has no basis that I'm willing to discuss or defend. So, my question to you is, "Why bother?"
Moreover, I am not convinced that you actually believe that it is "entirely up to us," which, to me, would indicate that you respect our right to reach conclusions that are different from your own. I say that because you have made several unsavory implications about us; e.g. being "prideful" and "pompous", suggesting that our position is "tiring" to defend, etc. Those comments are not commensurate with a position of respecting our opinion; they are disparaging remarks motivated by nothing more than the fact that we have reached different theological conclusions than you. In my opinion they are also irresponsible if you have not first taken pains to understand our position (and I see no evidence of that at all in your posts above).
So, I think you are being disingenuous. If your beliefs are based purely on personal opinions (as you stated somewhere), and you have nothing to offer in support of them that would be meaningful to anybody else, then go right ahead and keep them if that's your pleasure; but I urge you to also act consistently and 1) don't bother articulating those beliefs here, and 2) kindly keep your disparaging remarks to yourself.
Maybe so. I'd have been better advised using the 5000-plus who forfeited their lives to Islam extremists since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. Or better still, the 3000 who went down (to anonymity) on 9/11. But if Jill was used as a pawn, it certainly wasn't my intent. Like it or not, she's there, daily, in the news; and in our culture, that gives anyone carte blanche to use her name and likeness for whatever purpose. What do you think Jill's captors are doing? They, too, are using her as a pawn... soon to be headless one at that!
Nonetheless how can we not be touched by your concern, and how can we not make the inevitable comparison tween sensitive ex-C and heartless Bible believer. But please, let's not go there, it only insults both of us to tread so predictable a script. I'd also feel compelled to remind you that it was you that said Jill was... what was it? Deserving? That none of this would have happened to her if she had been sensible and not become a journalist, and that by doing so she can't fault being put in harms way. Why, Dave8, why is there never an ounce of blame for those who threaten and make good on the threat to extinguish American life? What's up with that? Do you wish for the enemies of George Bush to succeed that badly? That would seem to be a soul deadening bargain, and one that---God forbid!----may have terrible consequences for us all.
Dave8, again, again with the logic and critical analysis, those dark thiefs and destroyers of my all too fragile tranquility... "Being asked to provide some logical foundation for your opinion, is not necessarily an aggression against your right to an opinion"
As the 'Friends of Distinction' once sang (60's style, with plenty of soul and sweetness) "Yooooou've got me going in circles.. my mind is in a whirlllllpooool... give me a little sign... one small hope to cling to." What can I say? I can't carry a tune very well. All I can offer is that opinions are formed with logic and, yes, (let's say it in unison): Critical Analysis. But faith or a personal belief system is more a byproduct of the heart & soul... and of these, Dave8, Who can fathom?
Like your posts, though. You're a clever guy.
See what I mean? jim has got me and everything else all figured. It must be nice, so why bother to ask me anything since you already know the answers?
Love the sensitive act, and I'm deeply touched. Too bad I've already seen how abysmally dreadful you can be to Christians who've stopped in to lend a hand. Mind you, that's not me. I fully deserve your wrath and am more than prepared (oh, hurt me, please) but the others... many of them truly did have your best interests at heart.
You see... (or maybe you'd prefer to look away), but I just got out of the tub after ruminating over the day's events, and it occurred to me you're both right: dave8, in saying I haven't a critically analytical leg to stand on regarding my belief and/or opinion, and you, jimbo, in suggesting I may've arrived at unwarranted conclusions about some of you. BUT, they are anything but negative. On the contrary, I find most of what's said here, and the way it's said, to be refreshing.
Granted, I don't agree much with the assessment of life on Earth proffered by, say, boomslang: The unhappy scenario that God is uncaring or malicious in his lack of concern for the welfare of primates... But that's neither here nor there. What I've come to appreciate is the integrity in what is being said, if not its specific content.
Here, please, another try, by way of a story. There's a lady in my building who, when asked, "How are you doing?..." always puts forth the same sickeningly sweet and insincere, "I'm Blessssssssed."
You can tell there's not a lot of 'critical thought' that has gone into her reply, it's rote, as rote as the extras in 'Night of the Living Dead. And that's scary, frightening that one can become so indifferent to the presence of another. I don't ask much from the casual exchanges delivered to and received from passersby -- but on the whole, I'd like for them to be in the same zip-code when we meet.
And here, at this place, you get that. I much prefer your company than the people I encounter in Church. Boy, that's sad. But I live in a large city, and for the most part the denizens, Christians too, are pretty uncaring. We're all jaded to the hilt out here. So even though I can't support what I feel with any logical explanation that you can embrace, I hope you don't mind if I hang out and read what you guys have to say. Though I usually don't agree, I get a better sense of someone 'being there'... and in this day and age, that's awfully nice.
I'll hang in the background... unless I've got something of critical importance to add.
That's actually very nice; I certainly can't object to that.
As for your references to my under garments and the like, I'll let that pass, especially given what you just said. By the way, you did not offend me. By now I realize that strong religious convictions are often accompanied by a tendency to forget that others may legitimately hold different opinions. I like to remind visitors here, from time to time, that we are people too, and we too have strongly-held opinions (which we can usually substantiate).
Hello Whitey, your point is made, yes, there are Islamic fundamentalists out in the world who have an agenda to spread their religion or ideology by any means possible. My small input, was to show that there are other religious groups attempting world domination from the more christian persuasion. I not only agree with your input, I take it to another level, where there are many competitors in the world looking for world domination via ideology.
Ideologies, are not always logical, and do not follow value systems, that are prosperous for global peace. I tend to see many of these "groups" as having religious backing, its just an observation. What extremists did, on 9/11, Iran, Beirut, etc., all have one common theme, their value systems are inverted from those who would push for global peace.
As much as I would like to label the extremists holding Jill, as Islamic fundamentalists, I tend to focus on the leader(s) of those cells. The leader(s), aren't typically into buying into the religion, they use the religion as a mechanism to recruit. Those who accept blindly information provided them, without critical thought, are the ones who are targeted for recruitment. The only way to make long term gains in the global environment, is to get people to observe their values, and think critically.
This of course, flies in the face of many who are religious, as asking someone to provide their foundation for a belief seems to set them off, as if they were being attacked. Why is that Whitey? I have a theory... I believe many people are told they can believe whatever they want and don't really have to have a foundation. The people who are telling others this, are the ones who obviously have something to gain. Some, I propose, say this, because they themselves don't have a foundation, and don't want to appear different, others may say this, because they will benefit via control of these people in some manner.
I know everyone has the right to believe and have free speech, however, I would like to add, that people have a responsibility to themselves and to their neighbors to establish with high levels of awareness their "values", and their belief system, which blooms from their value garden.
Whitey: "But if Jill was used as a pawn, it certainly wasn't my intent. Like it or not, she's there, daily, in the news; and in our culture, that gives anyone carte blanche to use her name and likeness for whatever purpose."
Agreed, however, Jill as you said, is one of millions who have faced those who would want to push a global ideology via any means possible. The strategy is not localized to religion, there are nations who use the same strategy. The difference between groups comes down to values. One can label a group all they want, but in the end, its the competing value systems that cause conflict. Some leader(s), enforce certain values, so that they can easily recruit and control. Here is the U.S., these values are taught as well, by "some" groups, and are swayed to vote much easier than those who put the effort into critical thought.
Whitey: "What do you think Jill's captors are doing? They, too, are using her as a pawn... soon to be headless one at that!"
I can't speak for the future. However, I suspect that her captors, are ruminating on a few facts; one, Jill is a woman, and woman are considered much more inferior in that part of the world, anyone who picks up the bible and reads a few passages knows this. Because, Jill is a woman, killing her, in some aspect, doesn't garner her killers respect, and in some cases may cause the Islamic Moderates to swing left against the extremeists. Her captors, are looking to gain support, Jill doesn't fill that bill.
So, in the last week or so, her captors attempted to bargain; trade Jill for the women who are held in Guatanamo Bay, Cuba. This saves them face, as they don't have to lower themselves to killing a mere woman, and it shows their power in the international arena, which would garner them more support, bringing moderates to the far right.
Now, I can't be sure that this is what her captors are thinking, however, I can assure you, that the leaders who are holding her, are definitely thinking and strategizing on how to make the most of their victim for their cause. She is definitely a pawn in a game, but she is most definitely different than the World Trade Center victims killed in NY. The WTC victims did not voluntarily enter another country, known for hostility and violence and attempt to report on the underground militia, Jill did, she placed her life on the line for what she believed, and... she made that choice of her own "free will".
If, she believes that her cause was worth dying for, then Jill, would sound more akin to "I regret I only have one life to give for my cause". The real tragedy, is that Jill may be killed without ever knowing her true cause, because she was never able to support her belief system with great clarity.
Whitey: "I'd also feel compelled to remind you that it was you that said Jill was... what was it? Deserving? That none of this would have happened to her if she had been sensible and not become a journalist, and that by doing so she can't fault being put in harms way."
Jill, is one of millions of people, right this second who are directly in harms way, because they took an oath. I see Jill, as doing nothing less, than following her principles, and trying to support the "cause" she believes in. That doesn't remove the fact, that she "did" in fact enter a war-torn area of the world.
Whitey, we are all "deserving" of the choices we make in life. I feel more compassionate for those who don't get choices, and are brutally murdered. Those who choose to make their decisions, and live their life on the wire, are as deserving for their fate as I am for mine, when I make choices. Tis' why I take time, to think through my decisions in life, using critical thought, I hold myself totally accountable for the results of poor decisions.
Do I think Jill deserves death for her decision? No, but that is an entirely different discussion. I'd point out, that I don't think people deserve death for attempting to run accross a six lane high-way either, but, they die just the same at the hands of someone who isn't mentally or physically equipped to stop their vehicle/cause.
Whitey: "Why, Dave8, why is there never an ounce of blame for those who threaten and make good on the threat to extinguish American life?"
Whitey, in order to place blame, one must hold themselves in a position of higher moral authority. My prioritization of values doesn't appeal to many of religion. I believe life is more valuable than death. This is not so, in many religions, who hold, that there is much more value through "death", i.e., heaven, glory, etc., than there is in our miserable and sinful lives. How do you respond to someone of another country who asks you, how you can possibly support the same value system, that you oppose. It seems hypocritical to many. I find myself, having to respond, that not everyone "thinks" that way, but if a leader steps up and makes the statement that religion is a primary support for military action, they are "in fact", asking soldiers to value their own possible deaths, as more worthy than life, and unfortunately based on a religious foundation. Why, not just speak to values Whitey, without alienating a nation, and entire globe. It just seems to make sense, unless a leader must in some manner, "have" to side with the group that is going to give them support.
Whitey: "What's up with that? Do you wish for the enemies of George Bush to succeed that badly? That would seem to be a soul deadening bargain, and one that---God forbid!----may have terrible consequences for us all."
Like Einstein, I don't like politics, yet, it seems that many just have a compulsion to shove the pile, right out in the open in order to make a statement. I look at policies and the logical foundations, not the person pushing the policies.
As a citizen, I have the right, to disagree with every policy, action, executive order, public order, etc., that politicians levy. I don't have the right to attact the office of the president, its a federal crime. My ability to influence the political arena, is through voting, and I am taking full advantage of that opportunity.
Now, as far as I care to discuss GB's policies, I find that international relations have to be discussed with values and frameworks. Looking at some of the strategies, and policies that support such strategies, I can say I agree with some, but not all.
There is another "link" if you want me to provide it, that discusses global domination and control. I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves, however, when two or more people gather to force their views on others, it appears that there should be some strategy involved and obviously, this alludes that someone believes they are standing on the higher moral ground. As I might agree, that there must be some framework..., using a religious foundation to create that framework, is "not" in the best interest of national or international affairs...
Whitey: "Dave8, again, again with the logic and critical analysis, those dark thiefs and destroyers of my all too fragile tranquility"
The fragile tranquility of feel good, without thought, so easily becomes someone elses' justification to kill.
Whitey: "All I can offer is that opinions are formed with logic and, yes, (let's say it in unison): Critical Analysis. But faith or a personal belief system is more a byproduct of the heart & soul... and of these, Dave8, Who can fathom?"
Well, quite honestly, I can't fathom a heart and soul... Logic applies in linguistics, but, many times, its fuzzy logic. There are many who use ambiguous language, in order to maintain flexibility so they can shift their view if necessary. It would be remiss for me to say I don't believe in a heart and soul, as I believe a heart is a physiological object, and a soul is the by-product of ones' state of being.
It would however, be nice, to hear someone use language that was much more discrete, like, lets say math, or some other empirically founded language, but, religious wording by its sheer nature, attempts to describe the undescribable, and thus, becomes the gray area, greatly exploited by those who can manipulate words to evoke actions from listeners.
Whitey: "Like your posts, though. You're a clever guy."
As long as you meant to say clever, and not cleaver ;-) It is refreshing to talk of the issues with those who appear genuine and in search of truth. Take care...
Christianity has many problems indeed. As you mentioned, the quality of people is another problem with that particular organization. Bear in mind, these are people who are supposedly "led by the spirit" and "sanctified in Christ."
To me, the theology of christianity just doesn't mesh. The bible contains a lot of problems, and that's apparent to me.
Another problem it seems to me, is that the doctrine of "salvation by grace alone ('accept Jesus and you're saved')" appears throughout the New Testament, yet, Christ himself is quoted as having made statements in the gospels regarding entering "heaven" or "hell," prior to the crucifixion which is crucial to the establishment of the "doorway" into heaven and thus, said doctrine of salvation, according to christian theology. His statements often defy the doctrine of "salvation by grace alone." All of the passages in the gospels that supposedly support said doctrine may be translated in other ways that are more believable, and much of the remainder of the gospels seem to suggest some other "way" into heaven or hell, as mentioned above. It appears as though said doctrine appears in the New Testament and is really not what Christ taught at all.
If one studies Buddha, one may see a great deal of similarity in his teachings and those of Christ and, frankly, other religious teachings often explain Christs teachings in a way that the christian church can't touch! One example; "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light," according to Christ. I've seen christian preachers grasp at straws in their attempts to explain that one. It may be that Christ was referring to the minds eye which is more thoroughly discussed in other religions. There are many correlations between the worlds religions. Christianity, to me, is nonsensical. I choose my beliefs and disbeliefs. I might believe in virtue, or love. I might believe in a creator. Christianity I cannot believe in. It's just an absurd religion to me. I think it's a false religion.
Christ himself said that there would be "false teachers even in my name." That says it all.
A very well crafted post, enjoyed immensely, sir. Hope to speak with you again. W
slingshot... thanks much for the response. I don't believe I could ever put myself in the fundie camp. I always found it too restricting. Years back I had an encounter, in 1979, that was... well, born again might describe it, or you could say it was one of those pivotal moments on the birth-death-birth cycle that became more pronounced, or gained a greater prominence in my consciousness.
You said, "There are many correlations between the worlds religions" and I agree. There's a guy that TBN (which I've since blocked because I see the Crouch kid across the street at Starbucks playing hot-shot movie producer. What a dork. Anyway...) this guy, Howard Storm, used to show up on TBN to give his testimony of life after death (NDE). It was in the past year that I actually read the whole account on line, and in the written transcription he said he was communicating telepathically with this being of light who he, at the time, perceived to be Jesus Christ. Howard expressed concern over taking the right path, and asked the being which religion was right, and apparently the being responded by saying whichever one brings a person closest to God. I found that interesting, and needless to say, it's never included in Howard's account on TBN (carefully edited, I suspect). So yeah, I tend to agree with you about present day post-mod Christianity. It seems that many might, as Desi used to say, "Have some 'splainin' to do" in the great beyond.
Well... I've gone on too long. I still believe in Jesus, but I've taken up reading Thomas Merton... especially the stuff written during his time in Asia. He was more or less openly saying he was a Buddhist/Catholic/Mystic to the point the Vatican didn't know what to do with him. lol I guess, you just have to allow everyone there space. I know how I get if I feel mine's being infringed. Later, W
You said: "South... Teeter doesn't seem to be analyzing any of you so much as he seems to have illustrated that your unbelief in a hierarchy (be that God, Who, or Whatever in a time space continuum beyond the present realm) has not enhanced the quality of your lives."
And I asked: "Enlighten me Whitney, illustrate to me I beg of you how ones belief in a hierarchy (be that God or whatever in time space continuum beyond the present realm) can enhance the quality of life."
So, before you go, can you please answer my question? After all it seems as if you were implying that there is nothing else available to enhance one's quality of life. Am I correct?
Thanks
I see philosophy, as a set of parameters, where the center is neutrality. Most aren't totally neutral, actually most people are riding on the left or right side of a ruler, given the specific topic. Discussing philosophy, to finally come to that understanding, creates a mind that is aware of differing perspectives. The deeper questions, come, when trying to determine why some people shift left or right on the many spectrums in their life.
Even deeper, understanding, could be drawn when attempting to determine what the world would be like, if everyone had a zero base, or neutral perception on every one of the spectrums. It would be like, trying to determine what the U.S. would be like, politically, with a zero defecit.
Those who reach neutrality find it difficult to live in a world with those on varying ends of the spectrums. Anyone, who knows this, finds beauty in knowing the limits of language, thought, and how some fall on the spectrums.
Political leaders, chase the spectrum via polling the population, etc. Some take positions, and instead of chasing the polls, tend to find ways to garner support for their ideas, i.e., salesmanship. The greater wisdom is knowing philosophical limits, and seeing how ones' philosophy is being supported via political venue. The meaning of life, is "meaning", and we spend our entire lives attempting to find the typical "hidden" meaning in our lives. We do this through experience, and logical thought, and we are limited in both of these areas, thus, it requires people of differing perspectives to bring new information and experiences to the table in order to gain a wider base of perspective. Hence, diversity is an opportunity to see other perspectives based on experiences one would not readily have.
Anyway, there is philosophical beauty, in the "questions" raised and the take aways. Politics is a dead end, because its the "implementation" of the philosophy. Still, I like to look at the implementation plan, and break it down so that I can see where there is a shift, either left of right on a certain spectrum, when politicians create new policy.
If politicians debated on the merits of eachothers' philosophy, in common terms there would be a very fine line between either party. Its the details that are most left out in debates, and is exactly where one would be able to determine the true nature of someones' platform. Anyway, here is the link, there are some posts already made in regard to politics.
http://www.exchristian.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=788&st=0&#entry14171
South asks a very good question, and the answer seems to be genuine. However, there is a piece missing, there is the physical future, and the afterlife future. You stated that the physical future can't be known, in some degree, just as the afterlife future can't be known. However, our perceptions of this physical reality "can" be molded and twisted, creating a "not so happy" life.
Believers and Skeptics, both live in this Physical reality, period, whether or not the believer wants to elevate the afterlife (and value of death) above this physical life or not. As you said, some believers just seem to become disenchanted and bypass the physical reality, to create some ethereal reality that takes them to a happy place. This wouldn't seem too bad, "except" for the fact, that those who want to find a happy place outside of this physical reality, generally seem to be the ones to reinforce their belief by attempting to get others to believe in their personal non-reality based version of a heaven, god, etc.
When believers allow and fully support the notion of moving others through any means necessary to believe in some alternate reality, it decreases the quality of life for those who are honestly saying, there isn't an afterlife, until a time comes when a person takes their last breath and knows different. Living within a delusion, removes a person from the "here and now", and the dissociation causes rife in their personal lives, and those who they are connected with in society.
The same is not so for the non-believer or skeptic. There is surely the cause-effect relationship between the non-believer to the believer, but in a known physical setting. In short, people mold the future of tomorrow in this physical reality, by their actions they take today. Many don't agree with the actions being taken by those who want to influence life for others, based on the future of a metaphysical afterlife. It removes the happiness that can be known today, and event tomorrow, and replaces it with the "hope" that there will be a better tomorrow in an afterlife. Creating a society focused on the afterlife, reduces the quality of life in the here and now, as people create some mythical fantasy, and spend their life attempting to impose this physical reality into the myth, falling all too short, creating "unhappiness" for themselves, and those who are associated to them.
Whitey: "happiness for the most part, is greatly left to the individual and the lot he's been dealt, or been able to attain."
Again, one persons' delusion would be fine, however, Whitey, many people have to be associated with others who hold themselves in a position of perpetual "unhappiness" because of their desire to believe in a better reality in the afterlife. I can't attain a greater sense of peace, while subjected to someone who continually abuses themselves becuase they just can't make themselves conform to perfection. If the person doesn't attempt to achieve the mythical perfection, then they are self-abusive, by accepting they are fallen and naturally defective in some fashion, and incapable of becoming more than what they are; a perpetual "unhappiness" scenario.
I would love to believe that people can just accept their belief, and live their life without affecting others, however, we all know that is not the case. One person being patronized and abused by others in order to somehow validate the groups' mythical belief system, can have ill effects, i.e., Columbine massacre, etc. Those who impose their beliefs on others, to the point of abuse, deserve the reaction, if they did so intentionally. Alienating, violence, etc., were all parts of that scenario, and by loving christians no less, who were just trying to rid themselves of those who were different.
Interesting, that it would be easy to place blame on the individual for their actions, however, it appears to be more difficult when a person or child is brainwashed into believing something in a mythical realm exists, and that they should follow their teachings because it makes a parents' job a little easier, than dealing with reality.
The parents of all of those children who abused the shooters of columbine, should have been sued for improper rearing of their children, their childrens' direct actions over time, drove others to take their own lives, because they were "forced" to live in "unhappiness". Hence, some people force their beliefs on others, and it is controllable through law.
So, happiness is "not" for the most part left up to the "individual", if they live as part of a society, Whitey. Being "dealt" ones' lot, in many cases, is being dealt the people one has to be associated with. The ability to "attain" some semblance of "happiness", is the ability to remove oneself from those who want to "force" and "impose" their beliefs on others, and live life according to ones' own belief without imposition.
Whitey, this may come as a real shocker, but "everyone" is capable of doing what those two young men did. Given enough time and abuse, and programming, if you don't believe me, check out a few psychiatry journals on your off time. Therefore, the point being made, is that we are "subjected" to eachothers' company, even online on the internet, and our interaction forms and molds our perceptions and even moods to some degree.
So, again, "happiness", is not a person living in isolation, and in many cases, it can't be attained, if there are those who are fully engaged in ensuring they impose their will onto others because they have some need to justify or reinforce their ever loving christian beliefs - at the expense of others. What you perceive as "vindictiveness", was the release of pain and anguish held within two juveniles who found they had no hope to escape torment every day of their lives.
It appears some nations, are engagin in what you may call "vindictiveness" or "aggression" operations, because a misled groups/terrorists seem to want to impose their will on the masses. When "one group" or "person" imposes their will onto me, my family, or people in general in a forceful manner for their own ideological gain, I see a problem. Sad, that a few loving christians, just weren't mature enough or intellectually connected to make the connection, that continually hurting people can in fact cause aggression. Oh, well, such a steep learning curve for some of the victims. Perhaps, history, may teach the others a lesson in humiility, and care.
Here is Eric Harris' statement before he went on a hunting trip:
"Your children who have ridiculed me, who have chosen not to accept me, who have treated me like I am not worth their time are dead. They are dead! I may have taken their lives and my own, but it was your doing. Teachers, parents, let this massacre be on your shoulders until the day you die."
On this same web site, that posted this message, here is what our cute little christian friends suggest was the failure...
"Frank Peretti has referred to these folks as the "spiritually wounded" among us. These are the less attractive, less athletic, less brilliant, less capable among us who do not achieve as well or as much. Because they cannot compete they become the targets of those who can, and as targets they are hurt over and over in every way that the mind can conceive."
http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec99/DoYouUnderstandLittleton.html
Frank Peretti, after this incident, reflects back, and what has he learned, and what is he promoting... He continues to spout language of segregation... He has the audacity to appeal to the christians, not by saying we are all equal, no, no... that would be too humane... he suggests that there are those who are "spiritually blessed" and then, there are the "others", who obviously have less "spirit" or are "spiritually wounded".
Just another loving christian who wants to hold on to their belief, in the unknown, so much, that they are willing to continue preaching segregationism, without "any" facts regarding "spirits", "gods", or anything else metaphysical for that matter. This guys' solution, is to open the eyes of the christians, so they can better see the "crippled spirituality" that everyone but "them" has...
This moron, is preaching that one needs to be a more refined bigot, in order to "help" those who are "different". Right, I am sure the happiness bar has just been raised for someone... not sure who, perhaps Frank Peretti feels beter, I'm not so sure about the rest of society as more bigotry is being preached...
I find it sad, that some believe that a person can be a "happy" and noble bigot, is that possible, White Man a.k.a. Whitey... By the way, it appears you have a compulsion to create a little categorical niche for yourself, as a "white man", does that mean anyone should somehow feel different than you, or do you believe that in general, all of humanity has the same needs, Whitey...
Whitey: "I didn't see any winners and losers up at Columbine."
Ya' know, that is a pretty astute observation. However, there are those who thought they were winners, with pseudo-happiness, that became "losers" really quick due to their bigotry, and abusive natures. Its all about learning from the past, unfortunately, religion in general creates a class system, now doesn't it. It doesn't appear a person can be "happy", if they depend on others to accept and treat them as equals in a society.
Whitey: "Nor did I feel it was mine, or anyone else's task to exact an extra pound of flesh and blood atop that which had already been spilt. No. I didn't see any of that...I only saw heartache."
Sitting around, chasing the right thumb with the left thumb, is "not" the way ahead for humanity to live in peace, however, poking ones' head in the sand, does seem to be the solution for many christians and religious folks who just can't come to terms, with living in this reality, and the fact, that their bigotry directly creates and fosters hatred in society...
In the near future, there will be cameras in classrooms, if ever I have children, I will make it a point, to watch the behavior of other children, to pick out the bigots, who attempt to impose their will, "forcefully", onto my child... If ever I were to see such action, the aggressive child, the parents, the school, and even the "church" pastor, etc., with their hate speech which supports bigotry, would be standing in court, explaining their support for such actions. No, no, Whitey, I am waiting for the day, that the Church, and parents of bigot children will be held accountable in a democracy, that constitutionally states that all people/men are created equal... I plan on holding those who don't want to support the constitution to the letter of the law...
If I had the time Whitey, I'd be a prosecuting attorney, slamming down on bigotry as a hobby. I wonder if a christian would support their bigotry using the bible, and if that would hold up in court... let me answer, "no", and there is precedent. Hence, the courtrooms of the U.S. have made a stand that the bible can not be used to substantiate behaviors in conflict with federal and state law... I would be posing every court case I could get my hands on, that "makes" such a statement, that "religion" is "below" the laws of the nation, period...
Whitey: "Sorry for any misunderstanding... happiness for the most part, is greatly left to the individual and the lot he's been dealt, or been able to attain."
Again, "some" people preach hatred and bigotry, and "invade" other peoples' lives, to the point, that they "strip" the potential to find happiness for many people, it is "not" just left up to the individual, as seen in the columbine incident...
If "god" is used to express bigotry, and support mal-behaviors in society, then god, needs to go... starting with the people who use god to support their hatred/bigotry... Justice, does exist, and I personally, want to see a pound of flesh for the injustice seen at the hands of people who use religion as their excuse to be scum... However, I am an equal opportunist, so, I extend that sentiment to everyone on this planet, it just so happens, the religious folk, have a ready made holy book, which tells them its okay to be scum...
The quality of life rises, when bigotry falls... Religion, is founded on bigotry Whitey via the bible. Do you not see how someone can be compelled to get rid of the source of hate - the bible. Its like alcohol Whitey, some people can drink responsibly, and then there are the others. Just like alcohol, children shouldn't be given a substance they don't really understand. Children given a god, and a bible, are told to get drunk in the spirit, are nothing short of substance abusers... religion just happens to be a physcological addiction...
Well, you don't seem to have found any material to make that assumption, so, I can wait, until then, lets continue to see the rest of your post and how I could have some to a wrong conclusion somehow.
Whitey: "Feel free. It doesn't bother me, other than the twinge I get when someone exposes their own shortcomings and hypocrisy."
Hypocrisy, and shortcomings, hmmmm, lets see.
Dave8: "...White Man a.k.a. Whitey... By the way, it appears you have a compulsion to create a little categorical niche for yourself, as a "white man", does that mean anyone should somehow feel different than you, or do you believe that in general, all of humanity has the same needs, Whitey..."
Whitey: "How do you know my race?..."
Uh, I don't, its why I used the word "Create" a "niche". Further, I inquired if the "created" niche, was supposed to convey some special meaning... Your reply...
Whitey: "and how can you be so sure the more blatant derivation of White Man wasn't implemented as a reminder to those who never did get my name right?(I've heard Whitney, Whinety, and a few others. Not only here but elsewhere, so... sometimes I give out something people will make a more careful note of."
Your reply, is to not answer the qeustion, but to say, you were just trying to create a more definitive name for yourself as a reminder to "others", who are no longer posting to your comments at this time?
Lets see, the more "blatant" derivation of "Whitey" or "White Man"... hmmmm, Whitey by definition refers to...
Whitey: "Offensive names for a White man."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Well, the most "Blatant" derivation of the word Whitey is offensive towards the male caucasion, and then... your "choice" of a replacement word? "White Man", which is "In" the definition of "Whitey", as part of an offensive gesture...
I don't know Whitey, perhaps, my "Question" regarding your motive for using those "two" words back to back, actually had merit based on the literal word. However, for that ever so small chance, that you aren't making some clever little innocuous statement, I asked what compelled you to "CREATE" the name "Whitey" to begin with, and if the word somehow gave you some special consideration, as... I "HAVEN'T" mispelled your name.
Whitey: "I give out something people will make a more careful note of. You did. And it's so telling: the fact that you immediately assumed some kind of deep South or Chicago-style racial inference."
Your careful note, was to use racial slurs by "definition"? Well, I suppose if it works for you, I hope you realize that "some" people may consider you to be a racist if you used that jargon or handle in their presence...
Racist: "Discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I suppose your "real" name could in fact just be "Whitey", and you just arbitrarily followed up with "White Man", which had a "Zero" racial connection...
Still, tis why I said, you "created" a niche, using the name Whitey... And gave you the benefit of doubt, to see your reponse... Tell you what, I haven't drawn any direct conclusions on "why" you would use the terms you have used thus far, per my "obvious" post... however, lets just let the readers follow your comments, and use of language, and let them decide, shall we...
And, of note, you chose to say I am hypocritical and have shortcomings, because I observed your name change, but your entire excuse for your name change, was to get people to notice... Well, it appears, logically speaking, there is definitely some shortcomings in that explanation, and a little hypocrisy, if one continues to use racially loaded names, and god in the same post... Well, unless your god is a bigot, and then, it would make all the sense in the world...
Whitey: "Also revealing is your attack on Frank Perretti (sic), whoever that is."
I posted direct quotes, from a christian lean web page, I would assume that a christian wouldn't take another christians' words out of context and use direct quotes, but I can see how history has proven differently. In the end, the point still stands, that the christian response, is to treat others as if they were "spiritually wounded", i.e., somehow "less", than those who are "spiritually strong"... Using direct quotes from a christian site, and posting their hyperlink, is "not" an attack, its a statement towards the words on a web page, which are used to influence people in society... You do know, that web sites, can be influential, especially the religious web sites, that provide solutions to problems by promoting and reinforcing, the "they" are different than "me", mantra.
Whitey: "Does this give me license to attack any psychiatrist you may quote in the future."
Post the statement, and I have no problem discussing the topic. Whatever, you may think is a psychiatrically great topic to discuss, but, please, cite the web page source. Now, if you want, I can go chase down a hefty number of christian web sites, that create a distinct "us" vs. "them" scenario, but I am sure you are well aware of all the hate and separation that religion seems to promote.
Whitey: "Frankly, I don't quite see why you got so bent out of shape. The reaction of Klebolt and Harris was, you must admit, quite severe."
Again, abuse over years, adds up. Its obvious, that their response was equal to their abuse for their cases. Would it be the same for you, perhaps not, perhaps you could hold out a little longer before flipping out, but hey, given enough time and abuse, you "would" flip out, its not a question of "if", its a statement of "when". I equate their venting as a natural response to abuse over time. Do I think its a tragedy? Oh, sure. I think its a tragedy, that we have modern day religious zealots, abusing people to the point, that over time, they become enraged enough to kill.
Whitey: "It certainly came from something more than a flesh wound. Would you have chosen to say they were wounded deep in their hearts, an anatomical region that many ancient tribes believed to be the seat of all emotions? I think everybody could agree with that, or any assessment, so long as nothing trivial was implied regarding the damage done to the boys."
Right, it came from years of abuse, not just a one time event, from those of the religious persuasion. So, not just a flesh wound, a long term building of anger, and resentment and unequal treatment and cruelty via isolation and alienation. The damage was done psychologically, meaning, in the mind, where all thoughts reside.
Whitey: "Personally, not knowing the Mr. Perretti, I'd hate to imply he had an ulterior motive by his choice of the word spirit, but you clearly do it seems. So I'll tread lightly with you on this: I don't, I really don't believe he meant to imply anything metaphysical..."
Huh? The quoted words from Mr. Peretti, state that there are people in society who are "Spiritually Wounded", and you are suggesting that "spirit", in this context doesn't imply a persons' "spirit" as in their "soul" or "religious spirit"?
Can you provide me with an alternative to the use of the word "spirit", in a religious context, that is "not" metaphsyical. If you can drudge one up, is it the context that the typcial religious person is going to interpret, uh, no. The general christian or religious person, when given the word "spiritually", are going to immediately associate that term with their internal soul, or spirit.
Whitey: "and I really don't believe him guilty of using Columbine to foster an us-over-them spiritual kind of one-ups-man-ship. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but you of course you're entitled to your own opinion."
Well, whether its his intent or not, his words create such an environment. He could have just stated, we are all equals, therefore, take care of eachother, but... that wasn't the case. I'd give "him" the benefit of doubt if I were talking to him directly, because I'd ask him to directly speak to his statement. However, I hold his words on the site posted, under scrutiny, as well, as the myriad of other thousands of sites, I could pull up such religious rhetoric on.
Whitey: "Speculation, really. That's all either of us have, not ever having met the guy. OR maybe you know more about him than only what you feel. Do tell, if that be the case."
Ah, the fine art of marginalizing. Well, the words are in print there Whitey, I can speak to those words all day long. So, do you "condone" the literal words as they are presented, or not? You can remove Mr. Peretti from the statement altogether, what do the "words" on the christian lean web page suggest to the casual religious reader.
Okay, here is Mr. Peretti's, web site... and a passage from his writings, directly...
"The bullying extended beyond the school yard. At a neighborhood store, where a classmate worked, Peretti needed help finding the deodorant aisle. The boy took him there and pretended to be helpful, picking up a spray can and asking if that was what he needed — just before spraying the deodorant in Peretti’s face. In pain and humiliation, Peretti stumbled outside, collapsed on the curb and cried from the deep anguish in his soul."
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine. Copyright © 2001 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
http://www.family.org/fofmag/pf/a0026130.cfm
I suppose, soul isn't metaphysical either. However, you can have your opinion also, but, as for me, I think I'll take the good doctors' words, and the context in which Mr. Peretti used them when discussing "Spiritually Wounded" people. Perhaps, the man, is just ignorant, or more likely, he is targeting his audience with his rhetoric, i.e., christians, and religiously affiliate people, etc., with his words, knowing they would understand what "spirit" meant, i.e., soul. Still, the man is speaking to a group of people, and creating an us vs. them scenario, some less successful, and more less spiritually strong, i.e., a weak or hurt "soul". Again, religious beliefs, create by their sheer verbiage a separation of those who have strong spirits (the believers), and those who just fall short (the non-believers).
Whitey: "I sense a great deal of anger from you. You sound very much as I did, when I was much, much younger. A lot of anger dissolves, while some anger becomes too tiring to deal with, but other sources of anger (the deep hurts) need to be rooted out."
Whitey, please don't construe my words as anger, more like, "concern". My anger has taken a backseat to taking action in society to deal with such ignorance a few years back. Why do I post on this site? To ensure that anyone wanting to see a different perspective gets one. My past has galvanized my way, towards starting a book, and a few other projects that hopefully have far more impacting results, than this mere post.
We may be talking Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but, I do have other avenues to approach these topics of concern. I am not tired, actually, posts such as this invigorate me to do more. Who knows, you may have just inspired the next political candidate to run for office, with a religious Unitarian ticket (although I despise all religion), with the sole purpose of gutting all religious rhetoric out of public policy. Who is to ever know.
Whitey: "You'll take care of this, or maybe you are already, you seem to be quite conscientious about this and see it as more than just your problem. There's that child you spoke of, and a mate, and others, too. We're all part of the main, no man an island, eh?"
I have a degree in the area of social science, and psychology, I am one ahead of the game Whitey, but thanks for showing concern. We are not, just living life, as one individual on an island, and our nation is not just one little lump of dirt somehow impervious to the rest of the planet either. We are all connected, in some fashion, whether we like it or not.
Whitey: "But I won't argue or indulge any anger on your part by expressing my own. I am more capable... we all are... but I won't go there."
Well, triggering an anger episode for me would take quite a feat, but, my rhetoric may give that appearance, I am pretty frank about the issues... However, if you feel anger, that you are repressing on my behalf, might I suggest you post your concern, and lets take a look at your point of view, perhaps, we can learn something from any pent-up anger you may be harboring.
Whitey: "Hope you understand. Respectfully, THE WHITE MAN, MAN. Now you gotta a problem with that? lol Till next time, w"
Well, actually, no. I really don't have a problem, its just fascinating to see so many... words... used to represent one persons' posts. Perhaps, I will be "less" observant in the future, so that I can totally miss the words, and their literal and contextual meanings... lol
There is no such thing as a christain, jew, muslim, etc.
There are only human beings claiming to be christain, jew, muslim.
I do not claim to be a an Atheist, I am a rational thinking human being only.
There is no such thing as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc.
There are only human beings claiming to be Christian, Jew, Muslim.
I do not claim to be a an Atheist, I am a rational thinking human being only"
I like the way you peel away all the bull shit Stan. It doesn't matter what we call our selves, we are all pretty much in the same boat. The only difference our beliefs make, is how well we navigate through this life. Since there is no verifiable evidence to believe otherwise, we RATIONAL homo sapiens are obligated to believe that the exact same thing happens to all of us when we die.
You can believe that you are something special to an imaginary being up in the sky all you want, but the only thing that is happening is that your valuable time and energy here on earth is squandered!
Dan
Posts deleted.
I'm using my tail to type this message since I can't talk to you...you see, Whitey, I'm a snake. Do you believe me?
I went outside my house and my bush started speaking to me. Do you believe me?
I went to the Grand Canyon a few years ago. I got a ride on a donkey and the animal started talking to me. Do you believe me, Whitey?
I was in Maui last year, and as I was swimming a whale gobbled me up. I lived in this whale for 3 days and 3 nights before the whale vomited me out. Do you believe me?
Whitey, do you know how utterly ridiculous it is for people to believe these biblical stories are true? It takes brainwashing to get people to believe in these mythological stories, doesn't it? It's truly amazing that at one point in my life I actually believed in this crap. And you Whitey, as an adult, who uses logic and reason to support arguments; do you believe those stories are true?
Oh BTW, Whitey, the next time a child gets molested in your area approach your pastor and ask him if he's responsible for the criminal act. There's a strong correlation between Christian priests/pastors and pedophilia acts. I don't know if there's a precedence for exchristian's burning churches, but there is a definitely a history of priests who rape children.
Exactly Dano, and thanks, you guys are really good, I was wanting to jerk Whitey's chain, but I see he really got jerked...lol
You guys are really good too, everytime we all make profound statements, it will take less time to make these idiots see how stupid they are, but it's gonna take alot of time yet before we can quickly unravel the religious brainwashing, they've had over 2000 years to perfect their apologetics, whereas the minority of us nonbelievers are running out of precious time.
You guys(nonbelievers), are great and I love you all, keep fighting the good fight.
You're going to HELL. Your piece of shit God doesn't like it when you're deceitful.
2 Timothy 3:13 "But evil people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived themselves."
Hebrews 3:13 "But exhort one another each day, as long as it is called “Today,” that none of you may become hardened by sin’s deception."
You're gonna burn in HELL, burn baby burn!
If you have the ID code let us have it so we can see what it's all about, unless you happen to think this valuable information should be suppressed...lol
Click your heals three times with your glass ruby slippers and say, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do believe in Cheesy Crust."
I agree with some of your comments on the Bible except that ALL OF IT was written by man. You are considered property in your cheesy bible. You, as a woman, should be outraged at the way woman are depicted in this piece of shit book. We all know you are too scared to let go of this belief. You know the bible has some ignorant verses, so you invent excusses for the way the book was written.
You believe in christianity because you want to believe, that's all. Had you been born in the middle east you would be wearing a bee-keeper outfit outside of your home. You would probably also share your husband(if married) along with his many wifes. Be happy you live in a nation that separates Church and State...and I might add, the U.S. is the first nation in history to separate church and state.
The lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
I would like to read an honest personal response from an inquiring Christian after reading my short treatise on this above quote which depicts gods creation of evil(s). Try to list your reasons to believe in a god that makes evil for his own desire and purpose.
Objectively try to relate to the basic problems that are created amongst people and societies that are being guided by an absolute faith to believe they are living for and according to, a divine set-up, with mankind being exclusively made to fight for their survival in the middle of two extreme opposing forces (good & evil).
Evil, as purported to be invented by the biblical god to test the dedication and faith of his Earth-bound servant-children also threatens them with his horrific plans of torture for all those failing to meet his perfect needs.
Please describe how this divinely produced “intentional conflict” makes you feel as a ethical human being, instead of justifying the questions by simply talking over and around them with more bible quotes.
Imagine if you will; would you knowingly subject your innocent children to live in a place that was purposely designed to be conflictive and incompatible for them at all times?
Prov.16:4
The lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Q: Why would the bible god desire evil to begin with?
Q: What greater purpose does evil serve your faith?
Why would an alleged omniscient deity being of superior morality purposely "make" things that are wicked and evil, if the ultimate goal was to achieve eternal love and goodness?
Contrast might be a possible consideration, so that we may know what good is by comparing it to what is bad. But, Why not make the alternative a fair condition that is less harmful to our well being?
IF a god planted evil in the midst of goodness intentionally and these extremes were a planned part of the human living conditions on Earth, then couldn't we and shouldn't we, be able to turn that around and make the same accusation against the “sinful nature” of the bible god for creating evil in the first place, just as he condemns mankind for creating our own evils?
Better yet, Why wouldn't a god PREVENT evil?? Now that would be a great accomplishment, one that is worthy of love and praise.
A deity that produces conflicting natures to work against one another specifically, as to cause or produce constant struggles within the internal/external world of humankind only denigrates our life to a dismal production in a dramatic scheme of contradictions.
This belief reduces our existence to a trivial contest for supremacy, rendering our lives to being that of an enslaved race of moral combatants, for as long as we live.
According to the bible myths, we were made specifically to fight in this designer war which god began as an experiment to prove TO HIMSELF that he is capable of good and evil, creating and destroying, for his own desires.
How is that comforting to people of faith?
Allegedly, everything in existence originated from this god for his own ultimate purpose of requiring worship and glory in order for him to dole out rewards of everlasting life upon death only to those that are obedient servants to his plan.
He can deny this great benefit to whoever has fallen short of his expectations.
The War of Good vs. Evil that was commenced by your god actually negates free will and promotes
A supernaturally produced "state of opposition" will reproduce exactly what the parameters are set up for; hence the constant struggle between good and evil and hence the contradictive and complicated state of man.
One could speculate (as required when having faith in the bible) that this deity is just as confused and fallible as his human counterparts. We could only guess that maybe this god was bored in his solo simplicity in the beginning of time, and he needed something beyond himself to keep him happy. Was God unfulfilled being all alone in his absolute perfection that he needed to magically make a universe with planets and people to give him something interesting to study for the next few millennia’s?
This combative design was decided by whom, originally? God, of course! He personally claims it at such. His only other duty to this world: awaiting the Day of Judgment upon HIS creation that HE has destined for turmoil and torture, even though everything was without evil prior to his creation of it.
He is forgiving, but jealous
He is loving, but angry.
He knows peace, but commands many grand war’s.
He wants justice, but genocide is necessary.
He loves virgins, but grants them as property
He creates life, but destruction is equally promised.
He wants good, but makes evil.
God is a contradiction.
How does that make you feel to know that your god intentionally created mankind to serve him and his complex cosmic size battle that he himself, wanted and started, originally?
Again, following the illogical causation for our existence per the bible’s stories of human origin, it actually reduces our existence in this world to be nothing more than that of stuffed puppets in a cosmic sized theatre, with God being the grand master of our strings, in control of our deeds and disasters.
According to the bible, god is a nemesis: A source of harm or ruin: Retributive justice in its execution or outcome: To follow the proposed course of action is to invite nemesis. An opponent that cannot be beaten or overcome.
One that inflicts retribution or vengeance.
If you honestly reflect upon the examples of gods wrath and consider the behavior and actions of the “god” in the bible, he continually orders up evil and commands death as yet another part of his twisted plans for mankind. That is abusive behavior and it requires an abusive faith to go along with it. God appears to be as heinous as any human being that pre-meditates murder and kills for revenge or threatens terrorism when others do not comply with certain demands.
The bible stories, whether read as literal or metaphorical, reduces its god to a cold and calculating dictator which seeks to destroy everyone and anything that does not serve his self-centered needs of being praised for allowing us to be born into HIS constant state of contradiction.
Spacemonk pointed this out in his post on 1/30/2006 8:40 PM.
The bible god’s character is presented as unethical and deeply flawed, when compared to the highly ethical values demonstrated by mankind.
So, the conclusion one usually makes after reading the ENTIRE bible is either:
A. The bible is contradictive.
B. The bible is fictional fantasy.
The choices we make as individuals are decided upon through our unique understanding of the world, but I can not for the life of me, comprehend the intentions of the many people who believe in a god that enslaves mankind to be his burdened soldiers in a permanent war. God is declaring he started this conflict by himself and for himself, just to offer up a pawn like eternal life after death, even though HE could have created everything immortal and perfect, from the very beginning.
Complicated contradictions or fictional fantasy, those are the conclusions I personally came to in my honest reflections of the bible.
The god of the bible is abusive and inconsistent by example of his own actions, throughout every page of the book. The faith that is required to believe in such blatant discrepancies causes’ mass confusion amongst many people and this permanent doubt trickles down, leading to mistrust amongst the entire human race.
It is evident when looking back on our human history, that certain religions and their divinely inspired ways of justice are actually canceling out the validity of each others faith, because their own god desires for them to act upon his need for
evil(s)!
Meanwhile, god is camped out in waiting for thousands of years, anticipating his final act of condemnation simply reduces god to being an inferior barbarian that demands we fight his own battles.
Theistic faith is void of many things, but logical explanations to life are completely absent.
The bible, its main characters, and most of its stories are not practical answers to life greatest questions. It surely does not comfort me to know that I, or anyone else for that matter, is required to love and worship an evil making god in order to find assurance in our own fairytale life that has been pre-scripted to include murder and mayhem.
Ones actions say a lot about their intentions. We observe this in humanity. We also observe this in the bible. However, it is very troubling that most people have more trust in an evil making invisible friend and an ancient book of conflict, rather than a relying on the common trust of our fellow man and our guidance from our own modern knowledge, ethical rules, and honest inquiries.
Instead, the religionist places more value in believing in a grand conflict which has set them up to be part of a primordial fight that was devised by god, to inflict upon the human race a life-long lesson in contradiction that could have been prevented by never needing a conflict and solution to begin with!
I am convinced that this peculiar predicament of their faith drives the masses of believers to create those same living conditions on this planet; detriment and dysfunction.
Mankind is complicated…so are we a reflection of a complicated god?
Man is fallible…so it is also possible that god, is just as imperfect and fallible as we are, as created in his likeness?
Religion is complicated fiction…so it is possible that god is simply a fiction born out of our own complicated lives?
Does this faith not reveal their inability to distinguish ancient ignorance from modern common sense?
Again, the alleged bible gods approach to solving HIS problems within our human world is unreasonable and unwarranted, because GOD IS THE FIRST CAUSE OF SUCH SUFFERING, as it originated IN HIM and FOR him and has been carried out according to HIS predetermined course of events.
If my unbelief bothers god, then he must know his evil needs and thwarted actions deeply disturb me.
This eternal “reward” comes from the same group of people who think that having absolute faith in one single act of torturous murder (Jesus dying on a cross) somehow gives them life everlasting!
The bible is useless when it comes to teaching people the value of well being and living, because they have believe they have been saved by a heinous act of murder that was calculated by their own god and carried out according to his plan. That is a confusing message, one that is void of hope and justice. It uses conflict, control, torture, murder, and death as an example of their god’s greatest act of love.
That is sadistic. Jesus is tortured and murdered by the plan of his own father, and this is their symbol of forgiveness and righteousness? God carries out genocide and evil, by his own hand, and this is representative of what is great and loving?
Can you at least see why or how many ex-christian have questioned the validity of this faith?
The myth’s that motivates Christian believers to preach condemnation to unbelievers is no different than those myths that motivate terrorists to condemn Western infidels in the name of Allah. It is about imposing a myth on everyone else out of ignorance and understanding, but mostly out of fearing the unknowns.
I have come to the conclusion that the very nature of the Christian religion and a majority of the other world religions have nullified one another’s beliefs and their myths are leading mankind to produce faithfilled acts of evil, in hopes of gaining greater rewards; participating in evil is essential to your faith.
The big question is, what is to keep this God from changing his mind and decides to flip good and evil around just for his own entertainment.
The grand question is: Can this God really be trusted?...lol
I was posting on the go and did not proof read close enough to catch a few goofs. Oh well, thanks for taking the time to ponder it.
That particular bible quote is a prime example of the many insoluble problems that are present in and created by, biblical faith.
Now, about the flipping good to be evil as vice versa...We could predict the reverse outcome to be this: Us mere mortals begin living much longer lives because we have accomplished heaven on earth and hell would actually mean eternal life in neverland with the lunatic inventor of evil!
OR, maybe gods extreme plans of cruelty are being threatened by the loving E.T.'s from Titan. You know, those mythical beings that are superior to god.
They are the truest Truth's.
I get it now, life ain't nothin' but antonymic riddles! Yippee, so glad we figured that one out quickly. I am feeling a little supernatural right about now, how bout' u? (Well ok, not really)
The flying spaghetti monster has won the life long battle for us. Hot-spa-ghet-ti! (as in hallelujah) Amazing grazing...how sweet the sound. Anyone hungry for some unconditional pasta love?
No need for prostrating, praying, or preaching. Slurrping and sucking are optional. Lol ;)sexy!
Good noodles and good night to all!
"To you anonymous christians posters, reality and truth are a threat to you, you have nothing to ad to these forums, why don't you all go pray for yourself that you might acquire some common sense, instead of waisting your time trying to spew your religious beliefs on to us, it does not work here."
Very well said, Ted, you the man.
No more pearls for us piggies.
Prov.16:4
"The lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
I would like to read an honest personal response from an inquiring Christian after reading my short treatise on this above quote which depicts gods creation of evil(s). Try to list your reasons to believe in a god that makes evil for his own desire and purpose"
Melissa, I copied your treatise (5 pages) because you said every thing I would have said if I was a little smarter and not so lazy. Even though I instinctively know that the premise of your piece is true, I congratulate you for putting it so succinctly.
You should send it to Ali Sina at (http://www.faithfreedom.org/) I think they would put on that site.
Dan
I have to say, why are you folks investing so much time detracting from a belief you say is bunk. If it is then this is an awful waste of time. It seems more like you need the affirmation from like minded individules.
As for the “Problems” mentioned, it really looks like your tring to invent contradictions where there are none. For instance in “Problem 1” you state “there are many examples” but don't site any specific examples other than a general mention of how many were healed in the region of the “Genesarenes”. That's really easy. ZERO. The regions not even mentioned. (Or maybe you misspelled it).
Then you babble on further about us not being healed by his stripes. I'm guessing you consider “healed” in that passage to refer to physical healing. Could it maybe refer to.... oh.... I don't know.... SPIRITUAL HEALING as in being forgiven of our sins?
The rest of your arguments are equally ludicrous.
If the rest of our arguments are ludicrous, How do you correlate Matt. 23:13 with the doctrine of salvation by grace alone which the christian church is based on?
muttmutt1978
Come and get it Swine ....
no offence
"Don’t throw pearls to Swine"
I am a Ex.Atheist I only had a Experience with God/Jesus once I took a leap of faith
tell me this What has doubt done for you? even in life when you doubt your self you cant expect to get anywhere,
Does doubt pay the bills? no work does !
What do you have to lose by seeking truth? where does the evidence point to? Science has been pointing to God for the better part of this Century, Darwinism naturalistic creation has been proved Wrong!
there is no Gradualism and Evolutionist can not explain the Cambrian Explosion
Millers experiment was Bull, dont believe me? email me at anglewiingsiam555@hotmail.com and Ill send ya a nice report on it
one word ! Cold traps
second word wrong Gases
third word lack of oxygen
so mister Atheist where does science lead to? Design or pattern
www.flatearthsociety.org
www.talkingsnakes.net Sssssss!
The same old tired "I know, I'll shoot holes in evolution, and then Creationism will be true!" argument. Please. Hey, here's a quarter, now go call all your Creationist buddies.
Fourth word: Brainwashed. LMAO!
Okay, retard. Science is descriptive of the natural universe, not an alternate reality where your god lives.
Well, perhaps I have pegged you as illiterate too early in the game. So, why don't you pony up the science that points to your god, that is 100% certain, with no doubt.
I have a few words that come to mind when I read posts, from those who make claims without anything to support.
Anonymous: "one word ! Cold traps"
Okay, simpleton, that's two words.
Anonymous: "second word wrong Gases"
Okay, again, word is singular and you use two words.
Anonymous: "third word lack of oxygen"
See above statement
Anonymous, its obvious you don't have the mental capacity to do much more than cut and paste from a website that caters to those who are obviously not capable of understanding the bigger picture. Lets, see, how would I describe a proselytist such as you.
Two words, first observation: Loud traps
Three words, second observation: Smelly buccal Gases
Two words, third observation:
Cranial Anoxia
Enjoy, your much limited and restrictive life, sheltered under someones' ignorance, you call religion.
second word were figure of speachs
silly God hateing Atheist...
stop being biased follow were the evidence Goes where ever it may go.
Cut God out of the begining - Judgment = a happy Atheist that can pick and chose his/her morals.
Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, let us make man in our image."
Gods' mom, makes one wonder, if she wasn't a chick off the old block.
Therefore, its obvious, a perfect creation from your god couldn't be moral and ethical, i.e., honest, obey, etc., so, why would anyone think a mere mortal thousands of years later has a chance to be better than your gods' original creations.
Cut the literacy rate by 90% - self-value = a well trained christian.
Like it or not the universe had a begining Cause and effect , creation needs creator,
law needs a law giver,
There was no Eternal Universe like you silly Naturalistic Atheist were hopeing for...
If cause and effect are a universal maxim, and everything requires a creator, then what created the creator?
If you say the creator is outside our comprehension, outside of natural law, outside our current science, and was never created, then you've admitted two things: first, that there are some things outside our present knowledge and understanding, and second, that not everything requires a creator.
You can't have it both ways, either everything requires a creator, or there are some things that don't require a creator.
Admittedly, the genesis of the Universe is a mystery, but just because something is a mystery, it doesn't mean that there is a god and that Jesus is its name.
Think about it!
Nice start. Let's see if you have anything of substance to offer...
Anonymous: "I am a Ex.Atheist I only had a Experience with God/Jesus once I took a leap of faith"
I'm not surprised by that at all. In fact, it's extraordinarily common for someone to "see" confirming evidence of their beliefs (e.g. "confirmation bias"), which is precisely why I and others here argue that reason should precede belief, not the other way around. So, how do you know that Allah would not have rewarded you with an "Experience" had you chosen to believe in *him* instead? Why not Krishna, or Buddha?
Anonymous: "tell me this What has doubt done for you?"
I'll take that as a question about skepticism. It's done a tremendous amount for me personally. My entire academic and professional career would have been impossible without healthy skepticism, as that is precisely what is needed to do research of any kind. One must constantly ask whether various assumptions are reasonable, and whether the conclusions have been properly drawn. (This is a big difference between religion and science, by the way.)
Anonymous: "... even in life when you doubt your self you cant expect to get anywhere,
Does doubt pay the bills? no work does !"
Skepticism *is* work. In fact, it's very important work. Without it, we would not have science, we would have only alchemy and mythology. We would not have medicine, we would have witchcraft. So, I think your question is actually a non sequitur. As for doubting myself, I think it is very healthy for one to examine one's own beliefs and presuppositions on a regular basis. I do not view this as "self doubt" per se, but as "critical thinking". Without it, I believe it's very difficult for a person to grow intellectually.
Anonymous: "What do you have to lose by seeking truth? where does the evidence point to?"
Nothing. In fact, I've everything to gain. That's why it has been my stated objective (in so many words) since I was in grade school.
Anonymous: "Science has been pointing to God for the better part of this Century, Darwinism naturalistic creation has been proved Wrong!"
According to whom? What you just said is contradicted by the vast majority of established science. Name your sources, and let's take a close look at what they are saying, what data they have, and how they reached their conclusions. What is there to lose by openly seeking the truth?
Anonymous: "...there is no Gradualism and Evolutionist can not explain the Cambrian Explosion"
I think you meant to say that you do not accept the various hypotheses about how the Cambrian explosion occurred.There are a number of ideas about this; but, as yet, none is supported very well by the available evidence, because so little physical evidence exists from that time period. (The Burgess Shale is perhaps the one place on Earth where such evidence might be found, and only a tiny fraction of that has been explored.)
There is an unimaginably large gap between "we do not know", and "there is no answer (in science)". I don't know how you can justify taking that leap, unless it is of the same variety you took when you decided to believe in some deity.
Anonymous: "Millers experiment was Bull, dont believe me?"
Is there some reason I should take your word for it? You've made several outlandish claims and misleading statements already in this short post, so you have essentially no credibility. Also, I've heard that claim many times from creationists, and have debated that topic before. I can say with a high degree of confidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
Anonymous: "...email me at anglewiingsiam555@hotmail.com and Ill send ya a nice report on it"
Why not post a link to it? If you do, I'll take a look.
Anonymous: "one word ! Cold traps... second word wrong Gases... third word lack of oxygen"
Okay, now it's fairly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. You're probably repeating a few "talking points" from some creationist literature. (If I'm wrong, just list your sources. We'll examine them.)
First, there have been hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Miller-Urey-type experiments which have explored the much broader question of the conditions under which the building blocks of larger organic compounds can self assemble. So, even if you have some issue with the experimental design used back in 1953, you miss the larger point altogether. Also, by calling the experiment "Bull", you betray a misconception. The original experiment has been repeated myriad times, with the same results, so you can only be misconstruing what hypothesis was being tested. Your "one word" and "second word" supports this. By "Cold traps" and "wrong gasses" it appears that you think Miller and Urey were asserting something about the Earth's prebiotic atmosphere. They were not. They *could not*. If you did not pick up on that, then I suggest you read the original paper again. (You *have* read it, right? Published in "Science," 1953, volume 117.)
Anonymous: "so mister Atheist where does science lead to? Design or pattern"
Well, Mr. Theist, as I have never seen one single shred of credible evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural being, and as I have seen time again that very profound puzzles about the world can be answered without resorting to "god did it," I'd have to say that your position looks very weak. In fact, to me it is indistinguishable from any other mythical just-so story about how things came to be. Is there some reason that I should favor your explanation as opposed to, say, that of a Buddhist or Hindu?
Because you have already decided not to change your mind, there is no reason for me to be argumentative. However, I would just say: If you prove right then you have nothing to lose (except your physical body:) ) but if you prove wrong then you will experience eternal suffering.
Matthew 25:30:
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So make sure that you are right folks!
Choose the wrong religion, choose no religion, or choose the wrong version of the right religion, and it's off to the eternal torture chamber for you.
God is soooo good and sooo loving, and he loves UNCONDITIONALLY!
What does unconditional mean?
To a Christian? -- NOTHING.
Love bought through threats and torture is not love, it's rape.
Hello Reality Hater,
Ummm, there is no reason for you to be argumentative, because...... YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT! You have zero evidence.....ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADDA!
Maybe- but then it would be different Love.
Could we transform God into our own image?
Maybe- but then we would have no God
What kind of God do we want - the one who does not question our conscience?the one who bows to our own gods?the one who submits to our own standards?
Do we want to become gods who will invent the truth?
How can one say that this is right and that is wrong. Who told us that to hate is bad and to love is good?
Where have we learned that?
All the evil deeds derive from lie and deception.
If God accepted lie in any form then heaven would become the second earth - as wicked as a humans can be.
ROFLMFAO!!!!...good job, Mate!... what better way to tell the world that there IS NO GOD.
Evidence, please.
Make like your invisible god, and disappear.^^
You show up here with your cross necklace all in a bunch...what did you expect...Disney land?
Go ahead, use your FAITH and try to invent/explain to us how you "talk" to that imaginary friend of yours (god. While your at it, you must ask him why he created evil in the first place? He needed evil just as much as he needed good...what justice?
Your a slave to your hairball beliefs and you have no clue that your faith requires you to be a life long combatant in a (pretend) galatic sized moral battle started by a gigantic ghost hundred thousand years ago and he remains in hiding behind the wormholes of darkness...resistance is futile!
Sound silly enough yet?
God made evil...And you love him!!! That makes you an evil loving godbot! The devil was made by god and he is after you!
RUN FORREST...RUN!!!!!!!
The devil is his son!
Think...what if RA is the TRUEST God. IT is a Titan and IT reigns supreme over the entire universe and RA is even more powerful and supernatural than the inferior sub-supernatural group of gods, in the lower realm where your god is believed to reside.
DOH! Wait...you don't believe in Ra or Allah? Well, that means you are an atheist too? SHEESH. Why didn't you just say so.
You don't believe in Zeus either...what about Odin? Santa Claus, Peter Pan, and the Easter Bunny are not real to you? Oh, and don't forget the tooth fairy. Man, you are taking a big risk when it comes to your afterlife forever life. Lol...it's all a bit tricky.
Tell the kids...santa brings you presents...he is invisible.
The tooth fairy gives you presents...she is invisible.
God gives you presents...he is invisible.
BUT, we trust they are truly there beacause we just believe it in our hearts. Now, go to sleep and pretend there is an evil fire breathing devil waiting in the closet, so don't get out of that bed.
Kisses and lies and prayers... that will keep you happy.
No wonder so many kids don't listen to their mentally abusive superstitious parents;the others are just so damn scared of the monster lurking in the closet.
Which one are you?
Congrats and thanks for playing...
now go back to talking in tongues to the air and do let us know what the wind whispers in your ear, as it may be your answer to everything.
Good night and good luck!
TOWIM said "Because you have already decided not to change your mind, there is no reason for me to be argumentative."
Do you really think that's going to fool anybody? I'm amazed how frequently this very thing happens. A Christian wanders in here (for any number of misguided reasons), brashly asserting all sorts of nonsense, pretentiously puffing themselves up, and then ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz, off they go like a punctured balloon the moment they are challenged on anything.
To "Anonymous", or TOWIM, or whatever you're calling yourself now, I'd like to say this. You've got some serious thinking to do. Why do you pretend to know things that you do not? Why do you put on airs about seeking truth when you haven't the integrity to do so? Don't bother answering me; just think about it. I suspect you are very young. That would explain the brashness. If so, I hope you can learn to conduct yourself with a scosh more dignity and honesty in the future. Best of luck to you.
The One Who Is Mocked/Frocked: "What kind of God do we want - the one who does not question our conscience?the one who bows to our own gods?the one who submits to our own standards?"
Okay, I thought I was done for the night, but, it appears a bible verse or two is in order;
John 10:33-34 - "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Emptycan: "But how about jesus? Do you hate him, too? What are the reasons?"
Well, Emptycan, why don't you and the one who is mocked, get together, and discuss if Jesus is correct, that we are all gods, let us know how it turns out, personally, I want to be my own god, as part of the god human race, but, you could deny Jesus' statements. That would be a shame, or would it?
1 John 5:7 - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Well, Emptycan, it appears John didn't have much to say about Jesus, so much for the trinitarian view of father, son and holy ghost. Perhaps, Jesus is nothing but a "word", like "tooth fairy".
It would be fitting, I suppose, if Jesus was 'just' a word, and seen as a literary character, as then christians could see past trying to prove a demi-god named Jesus lived, and started focusing on the words in a literary book, that may hold some historical value. Of course, I may debate the moral value, but, the historical value can't be denied - even comic books have historical value.
Jesus wanted people to worship him over God.
Jesus said, If you have seen me, then you have seen God. A lie! John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time.
Jesus said, No one comes to the father, except through me. Jesus wanting all worship to come through him. Jesus has stolen God's attention and worship away from God.
Jesus said, I come as a thief in the night. Meaning Jesus steals and is deceptive.
Jesus wanted to be worshipped just like a God, that is the reason he faked his own death.
Jesus was the greatest magician and hoaxster to have ever lived, and has fooled millions of people professing to be Christians, now they've got egg on their faces and it abhors them greatly to admit it.
Jesus fooled you Christians and now you're stuck in your religious death cult and can't get out...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha he he he he he he ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Jesus got you good too, with your pants down and bent over, right up the ole yahzoo, bend over and give your Heart to Jebus...ha ha ha ha he he he he he.
Maybe- but then it would be different Love."
So, divine justice is to dole out eternal horrific retribution for temporal sins? I snub my nose at god for 70 or 80 years and the just punishment for that is everlasting agony in a firey dungeon created by a loving god?
Tell me something. What horrible sins have you commited that you believe justice whould demand that torture as a proper punishment? Do you think it proper for men to torture other men? For instance, if someone were to rob a bank, do you think a just punishment would be to torture them the rest of their life?
"Could we transform God into our own image?
Maybe- but then we would have no God"
What I take it you mean here is that God's ways are not our ways. Well, I would expect that a god would have different ways from us, but I would also expect that a god's ways would be superior to our ways. Your god's ways are inferior to ours, unless of course you do think torture is a just punishment.
Now, if in heaven we can no longer rebel against god, how is that we can no longer rebel? Certainly we can always rebel while on Earth, whether we are Christian or not. What changes when we get to heaven? Are we deprived of our free will? Are we too damned scared?
If your god is going to make us so we never rebel against him in heaven, then why not just do that from the beginning? Why make it so nearly all of humanity burns in terrible agony for ever and ever and ever while just the remnant few true Christians get the pie in the sky?
Why the cruel joke?
You've spent a lot of time asking questions, and getting quite a few answers.
You seem disinclined to answer any questions, however.
What's your purpose for being here?