ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians - Latest Comments in 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

boomSLANG — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:13:00 -0000

Said perfectly, Webmaster.

Just in case, a third review of Matthew's statement: ...we are not the one's who determine who's a true Christian and who's not.

AmEn!... and likewise, "we" are not the ones who determine if people have left the Christian cult for "strange" reasons, or not. What one "True Christian™" sees as "strange", another sees as completely normal. It's really not hard to grasp. ALL religious belief is SUBJECTIVE.

Bye now.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

.:webmaster:. — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:50:00 -0000

Matt,

Your unwillingness to specifically identify a single version of Christianity you believe to be strange, is telling.

The fact is, all manner of individuals throughout history have decided the best version of Christianity "through research into other Scriptures, Greek/Hebrew, archeology, history, reason, etc.," and have come to widely divergent conclusions. A simple study of the literal and figurative wars that were waged and still rage regarding Pelagian, Arminian and Calvinistic, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran and Baptist doctrines provide a starting point. People died for various according-to-you-unimportant distinctives in these opposing camps and believed and still believe in many cases that their distinctives to be essential to salvation.

It is good that you approach life a bit more pluralistic, but my point is that millions of Christians did not see things the way you them. And in a different time period, the way you see things would be considered heresy, and could likely have gotten you imprisoned or killed. To deny the trinity was an absolute capitol offense for centuries.

Interestingly, the dynamic and holy ghost filled scholars and Christian leaders of the past, who many times disagreed with each other to the point of shedding blood, were as dogmatically confident of their respective positions on things as you are. Yet, it appears easy for you to completely dismiss men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Wesley, Melanchthon, Knox, Cromwell, Augustine, Pelagius, Arius, Athanasius, and on and on and on.

These men changed the world. Yet, many of them did consider each other as the most heinous of demonic heretics, and devoid of salvation. For a quick study in the doctrine of the Trinity and how important it was (is) to Christians, see here: Trinity

So, your unwillingness to identify which version of Christianity is strange belays that you really know there is no way to do so. Basically, your personal opinion is all you have in differentiating between a strange and a non-strange version of your religion.

However, I'll make it easier on you. I suggest that all versions of Christianity are strange, because the believer is required to accept all manner of odd and impossible stories and beliefs based on nothing except the mystical fantasies written in an ancient collection of writings on which no two "Christians" are able to come to complete agreement.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:25:00 -0000

Peter,

The fact that there are thousands of Christian denominations matters not to this discussions since 1) Christianity doesn't claim that people are saved by denominational affiliation 2) Most people in denominations don't pretend that only their denominations is 'true' christianity 3) Denominations derive from different emphasis regarding secondary issues, not essential christian doctrine.

In regards to your question about the trinity, I do believe in the trinity, but I would not dis-fellowship myself with someone who didn't believe in the trinity as long as they agreed with the 5 items I listed above.

And I'll state again that I am not responsible, nor do I have the capacity to make a 'test' to determine who is a true Christian or not. One is categorically not a Christian if they disagree with essential Christian doctrine, but anyone who claims to adhere to essential christian doctrine is accountable to God, not me.

tigg13,

It wouldn't matter if I were a priest or a porn star. Either my points are true or not. If they are true, they are true even if I am a faker.

Of course, most people on this site will reject what I'm saying. That's your freedom. I have no plans to 'discuss my faith' as you say. I simply made a comment that I have never met a creationist who argued the position stated in the article. I then stated that I disagree with the underlying assumptions of uniformitarianism. The only reason for further commenting on my part has been in response to direct questions asked of me. I was asked to stop commenting, and I'll gladly do so once people stop addressing me specifically.

In case this IS my last comment, I want to express, once again, that I find the site well put together and spiritually stimulating. I appreciate the quality of the articles and I wish you all the best in your pursuit of truth.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

tigg13 — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:21:00 -0000

Pardon me, matthew, but while you're trying to figure out how to get around this "what defines a true christian problem", you might also want to consider this:

Since you yourself have said that it is possible for someone to claim that they are christian but not really be christian, why should we trust anything you have to say about christianity when you yourself may not actually be a true christian?

You need to establish some objectively verifiable credentials, matthew. Just like you said, anyone can say that they are christian.

So, to recap, you need to provide a system by which we can determine who is and who is not a true christian and you need to prove that you are a true christian in a way that is independant from your system so that we can be sure that both you and your system are legit.

Once you have done these things, then you may proceed to discuss your faith.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Luke — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:49:00 -0000

How to identify a "True Christian" by their fruits!

You get up Sunday morning and take a bath and put on your best clothes and pretty shoes and go to church.

Then you walk into church with a big selfrighteous grin and tell everyone how wonderful they are and how lucky they are to be in church with you.

Then you all pretend that you are worshipping an invisible deity and then you pray to this invisible deity and you get all puffed up over yourself for being in this man-built church.

Then you pretend to sing songs to this invisible deity.

These are the "True Christians", the one's that are pretending along with you that day.

Then the "True Christian" will never miss a Sunday or a prayer meeting, nor will they ever sway nor read anything opposing their beliefs, because they have found the one "True Belief".

The "True Christian" believes their Bible holds all truth and wisdom obtainable in one's lifetime.

The "True Christian" believes that there is no greator truth and wisdom and knowledge available anywhere in the world today, except from a book written by men, over two thousand years ago.

The "True Christian" knows that he is now superior than people that do not believe as he believes.

The "True Christian" feels selfrighteously superior than non-christians, because his bible says he is.

The "True Christian" is all about what he can obtain for himself, he's got a belief, a belief in a book, a book written by people on halucingenic drugs.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Peter — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:33:00 -0000

Matthew: "Despite what you imply, I don't think it is always (or even usually) very difficult to determine which interpretation of Scripture is better on a given topic."

Okay, do you believe in the trinity or not? Whichever way you choose, you alienate the others who believe different using the same bible you use. And, the use of "always", is useless, unless you are going to present something you know that has "always" existed - show and tell?

Matthew: "This is done through research into other Scriptures, Greek/Hebrew, archaeology, history, reason, etc. Even for those who reject Christianity as a whole, it is hard to imagine one would argue that certain beliefs aren't more biblically sound than others."

Then why are there thousands of Christian denominations, using the same bible?

Matthew: "There are people who can't reasonably be called Christians b/c they don't even claim to adhere to essential Christian doctrine."

Yet, it's the Christian doctrine that is used to support thousands of Christian denominations. Thus, there are "no" true Christians, unless you accept "all" Christians as true Christians regardless of doctrinal belief.

Matthew: "Then there are people who call themselves Christians, but don't actually follow Christ. I, and anyone, is very able to identify the former group. I don't have the capacity to identify the second group, nor the desire. Despite this fact, it is unreasonable to claim that I can't talk about the general existence of fake Christians simply because I can't pinpoint who's who."

Uh, Matt, in order for you to place yourself in a position to talk about the "general" existence of fake Christians, you are reflexively suggesting that you are generally a "real" Christian based on some criteria.

So, generally speaking... what do you suggest is the "real" Christian test. Doctrine can be interpreted many different ways - that doesn't seem to be a great test. Jesus never wrote a passage in the bible, thus, you have nothing to suggest that someone isn't acting as Jesus wanted them to. Matt, by all means, show everyone how to test a Christian to see if they are real or fake, thanks.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:14:00 -0000

webmaster,

I don't see the 2 as different. There are thousands of secondary issues within the realm of Christianity. Some of the positions taken on those matters are quite strange and off-putting.

Despite what you imply, I don't think it is always (or even usually) very difficult to determine which interpretation of Scripture is better on a given topic. This is done through research into other Scriptures, Greek/Hebrew, archaeology, history, reason, etc. Even for those who reject Christianity as a whole, it is hard to imagine one would argue that certain beliefs aren't more biblically sound than others.

Boomslang,

You seem to be mixing two different issues. There are people who can't reasonably be called Christians b/c they don't even claim to adhere to essential Christian doctrine. Then there are people who call themselves Christians, but don't actually follow Christ. I, and anyone, is very able to identify the former group. I don't have the capacity to identify the second group, nor the desire. Despite this fact, it is unreasonable to claim that I can't talk about the general existence of fake Christians simply because I can't pinpoint who's who.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

boomSLANG — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:21:00 -0000

Boomslangs point that every(one) that(who) claims to be a christian IS or everyone who claims it is NOT is an aburd point in my estimation.

Firstly, the above wording is non-sensical. Maybe you typed it in a hurry?.. I don't know. Nonetheless, by your next statement, you not only make my point, but show that you haven't been absorbing one thing I've said on the matter.

Matthew: First of all, we are not the one's who determine who's a true Christian and who's not.

No shit? Now....do I need to go back and find statements that you made where you talk about "false" or "fake" Christians? Who says they're "fake" and "false"...YOU, right? Right..and who says Shirley Phelps isn't your "Sister in Christ"? Again..it is YOU who would confirm, or deny it....but in order to do that, you'd have to make the judgement of whether she was a "True Christian", or not.

Let's review: "..we are not the one's who determine who's a true Christian and who's not."

Matthew: We are truly Christians if we are truly following Jesus.

...::yawn::...

Everybody together now---and who is it AGAIN who determines if one is following Jesus, or not?

Review once more: "..we are not the one's who determine who's a true Christian and who's not."

So again: If "we"...i.e.."YOU" and "ME", don't determine who is, and who is not, a "True Christian", then it is up to the individual, thus, ANYONE can be a "True Christian", and no one can say otherwise. May original statement stands, whether it's butchered in a quote, or not.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

.:webmaster:. — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:23:00 -0000

Matt, to add to my previous question: Do you still believe that there are strange versions of Christianity, and if so, how do you determine which are the strange versions and which are the non-strange versions, and how would I be able to tell the difference, in you opinion, since most people are convinced that their particular version of Christianity is the most correct version?

Thanks.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

.:webmaster:. — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:20:00 -0000

So, Matt, you no longer think that people leave strange versions of Christianity, but that people leave Christianity for secondary (not strange) reasons.

Is that what you now are positing?

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Anonymous — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:39:00 -0000

1. God exists
2. God is good
3. Jesus came in the flesh
4. Jesus is who He claimed to be
(Messiah, son of God, Lord)
5. Jesus rose from the dead

According to who? A book? Men?

Neither a God no Jesus, never wrote one word of the Bible. Yet we are supposed to believe they are real...ha ha ha ha

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:37:00 -0000

You both seem to be misunderstanding my point which leads me to believe I'm doing a poor job at communicating it. I will try again.

I am not saying that strange versions of christianity don't have truly christian members. I am saying that any version of christianity, though it adheres to the essential elements of the faith, that had distorted and untruthful views will be a big turn off to people. That is common sense.

My statement stands, that an awful lot of people that leave christianity leave over secondary issues and THEN, later, reject the essentials. I think this point is very telling.

I determine that God is good via revelation from God which He gives through creation, conscience & Christ. When I look around at the creation I see the work of a creator. When I am considering doing something that would obviously be wrong, I notice that my conscience speaks against such a thing. And when I study the life of Christ I see a man of goodness.

Boomslangs point that every that claims to be a christian IS or everyone who claims it is NOT is an aburd point in my estimation. First of all, we are not the one's who determine who's a true Christian and who's not. Second of all, that logic doesn't work in other cases. Claims are easy to make. I could claim to be President. President Bush may claim the same thing. It doesn't follow that we either both are or both are not. The litmus test exists, but not with us. We are truly Christians if we are truly following Jesus. Jesus knows His own, I can't identify them (hence the wheat & weeds parable of matthew 13). So, again, you are assuming secular humanism (that human thought is all we have to work with) and then using that assumption to disprove theism (that God's thoughts are real and matter). You are free to do that, but don't be surprised when it's not convincing to a theist. In the same way, I am not surprised when my theistic arguments aren't convincing to you

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

boomSLANG — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:16:00 -0000

1. God exists
2. God is good
3. Jesus came in the flesh
4. Jesus is who He claimed to be
(Messiah, son of God, Lord)
5. Jesus rose from the dead

Matthew, your "Sister in Christ", Shirley Phelps, of "Westboro Baptist Church" fame, believes points 1-5, as well. Furthermore, she and her congregation(her family) derive their beliefs by the very same "Divine revelation" that you admittedly do---that being, the Holy Bible.

Now wait, before you tell us that she is "misinterpreting" the scripture, stop and think.....because she'll tell us that it is in fact, YOU who is misinterpreting it. My point being, either anyone who elects themselves as a "Christian" IS a "True Christian", or else, NO ONE is a "True Christian". Again, there is no litmus test to being a Christian. Like all religious belief, it is purely subjective.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

.:webmaster:. — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:20:00 -0000

These were also the things I believed as a Christian.

Yet, you said that those who leave Christianity, most frequently leave strange versions of Christianity.

Since I too once believed the five statements you posted, how is it you determined that the version of Christianity I left was strange?

Further, how do you determine that "God" is good? Do you have some idea in your mind of what "good" means, and your god fits that definition and therefore can be labeled as good? Or, instead, does your "god" define the meaning of good, and therefore whatever your god does is good?

Basically, what does "good" mean to you?

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:09:00 -0000

Since you've asked directly for what I believe are the particular beliefs of 'my version' of Christianity, I should say, again (since i feel I've already answered this question), that I don't consider myself to have a 'version' of Christianity. All Christian believe the following essential doctrines

1. God exists
2. God is good
3. Jesus came in the flesh
4. Jesus is who He claimed to be
(Messiah, son of God, Lord)
5. Jesus rose from the dead

To me, everything else is a secondary matter. In other words, I can disagree with someone on any and all fellow Christians and still consider them a brother or sister in Christ.

I hardly feel I've avoided direct questions, especially considering I said from the get-go that I wasn't here to argue for Christianity (and since I was asked to stop commenting). And It's not as if my comments have been responded to. The whole article was based on uniformitarian assumptions which nobody has argued for.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

eel_shepherd — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:24:00 -0000

Matthew, replying to WM, wrote:
"...I'm not trying to convince any of you of anything. I just think your site would be more intellectually honest if you didn't almost always use a version of Christianity that thinking christians don't adhere to as your punching bag..."

and then later labeled the members of this messageboard as "angry" or "hostile" or whatever the adjective was.

Matthew, just because a person delivers their stuff in an up-tempo happy, calm, etc. sort of style, doesn't mean that they're the "good guy" of the piece. When you (and here I actually mean _you_, Matthew) calmly duck/ignore real questions that are put to you, you needn't think that we don't recognise that for the sort of passive-aggressive hostility you accuse the members of.

The WM asked you a real question, that had weight and occupied space (just to refresh your memory, he was asking for the particulars of your version of Xtianity, since you had previously dissed other low-rent easy-target varieties, and accused the members of picking them as straw men), and you were, to use a lawyer's term "non-responsive", choosing instead just to motor on with your own no-interlocutor-required agenda. Hoping that "your karma would run over his dogma", as the feller says.

Just as a side topic, not explicity directed towards the above message (...not to say revelation...) to Matthew, I'm a Bridge-player, and I've noticed one really major difference between [culturally] Jewish and [culturally] Christian players. The nominally Christian players will often get into the following loop with their Partners:

"Why on earth did you play that card, at such-and-such a point in the hand?"
"Well, what _should_ I have played?"
"Well, not _that_ one, at any rate."
"Okay fine, not that one. Which one, then?"
"Well not the one you did play." etc etc etc ad infinitum/nauseum

At least the Jewish players will give you an answer, how ever smart or dumb the answer is. It's positive, y'see? It _posits_ something, no matter how goofy the response might happen to be. I'll take that any day.

Okay, Matthew, you can tune back in now, and give us the particulars of your brand of Christianity. We're waiting and watching for it. Until it appears, I for one will be taking the approach, "if it ducks like a quack, it probably is a quack."

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

xrayman — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:35:00 -0000

I would like to quote me myself and I, along with yours truly,

"Matthew,
Just remember I really appreciate folks like you and Paul stopping by and posting because you bring out the best in the brains of this operation."

Dano I think you more that made my point with your last post. Once again you have given me more great stuff to share and to live by. Excellent material which was all made possible by Matthew. Thanks Dano.

Bill

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Dano — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:15:00 -0000

Matthew,
I've been reading and commenting on this site now for about 4 years. I Have seen many people come here and begin some very long discourses. It appears to me that the most avid commenters identify themselves as Christian Preachers or some greater or lessor degree thereof. It seems obvious to me that the reason the "Preachers" or "youth leaders," or "Deacons" are the most tenacious about trying to defend their stated belief in Christianity and the bible is that, #1. It takes a dominating personality to label yourself as one of these and take the stance of teacher. #2 These type A types, usually have had some success at posing as "teacher," or leader, and therefore have the confidence, that leads them to believe they are going to straighten us out on the subject of faith.

They most likely will have blog sites where people holding similar beliefs make comments and agree with everything they say or they just accumulate a large collection of "Christian stuff" and go into the business of setting themselves up as authorities on the bible and how to "Get saved." In short, they have a lot invested in "Being a good Christian"

You are intelligent, and stubborn, but I have seen some Christian apologizers come here who were obviously bonifide geniuses, but you and they, all do the same thing. You all totally ignore the most salient points, made here by the regulars, some of whom in my opinion are the smartest people on the net.

You and some very intelligent others, consistently fail to recognize the fact that when you argue about the existence of supernatural things, you are at a huge disadvantage with those who have been where you are at, and came to the eventual conclusion that it is impossible to believe in the unknowable, intestable, unverifiable tenants of any "Faith based creed"

You don't seem to understand the simple fact that it was ok for bronze age folks to get all caught up in the stuff in the bible, but along came "The scientific method" and Darwin, and all things requiring faith took a back seat.

Faith now is obsolete. It doesn't work anymore. It's broke. You can't just say "IT says in the bible: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah," anymore because the knowledge we have today has proved that the bible, although containing some good stuff, is at best not true, and at worst harmful. We know you can't prove the "Jesus Story," because we have seen some very brilliant people go down in flames trying, after they allowed one little bit of reality to seep into their thought processes.

The bottom line is, Matt, like you, we really, really, wanted to believe there was a sure fire way to never die, and that an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, God was up there watching everything we do, but that belief crashed headlong into reality and truth.
Dan (agnosticreincarnationist)

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:48:00 -0000

matthew said: "Actually commenting is unnecessary to fulfill my purpose in visiting, so, as suggested, I will simply read."

*ack*
how mawkishly pious
btw, it wasn't suggested! it was rhetorical! (bloomslang, previous post) But I suppose that was your way of bringing this to a higher level

Naomi

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:21:00 -0000

The site is helpful to me because I've always been a person who wants to hear all views about life. The articles are well written and pointed. I like discussion and conversation. I have tried my best not to put forth arguments for Christianity at all, though I have responded to some direct questions. I just like to see how atheists and agnostics argue there position and respond to initial critique.

Actually commenting is unnecessary to fulfill my purpose in visiting, so, as suggested, I will simply read.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

boomSLANG — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:53:00 -0000

I find the site helpful to me personally, but if you'd rather I not share my thoughts I'll oblige.

I'm personally curious to know how this site is "helpful" to you. From what I can tell, it's definitely not strengthening your position, and/or, the theist position, in general. And I think you're being a tad disingenuous when you say you're not here to convince anyone of anything. In fact, I think you've tried quite hard to convince us that you "know" there's a "supernatural" realm, where "sits" a "supernatural" deity, and that that deity is none other than "Jesus Christ". Just for ol' time's sake---where the hell is your Jesus this very second, other than in your head and in the pages of a book? And if you answer, please tell us how you "know".

In any event, if the articles help you in some way, you can still read them as a bystander, right?(Rhetorical)

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

xrayman — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:44:00 -0000

Matthew,
Just remember I really appreciate folks like you and Paul stopping by and posting because you bring out the best in the brains of this operation. I will say you've got guts coming into this hostile enemy territory. I don't really get why because I wouldn't go near a Christian message board. My lack of belief has been stregnthened significanty because of the responses your comments inspire. Without your various religious points to be refuted, this forum would be a lot less informative to this rather new atheist. A big thanks to you and Paul.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:38:00 -0000

I am certainly not interested in being an unwelcome guest. I find the site helpful to me personally, but if you'd rather I not share my thoughts I'll oblige. I'll take no response as an affirmation that this is the wish of the members of this site.

thanks for the thoughtful articles,
matthew

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

boomSLANG — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:26:00 -0000

Fair enough. Okay, if you don't have evidence for your belief other than "revelation"..i.e.."the bible"; if you are "not trying to convince" any of "us" of anything----can you please make like your "God" and become invisible?.... undetectable to the physical senses? Enough, already.

Re: 300 million year old rock - ExChristian.Net - Articles

matthew — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:21:00 -0000

You can seriously read through this list of comments and interpret me as the hostile one? My original statement was that I don't agree with the opening assumption of uniformitarianism. Just like last time I commented on this site, the response to my response had nothing to do with my comment and everything to do with spitting back your list of objections to Christianity in general.