-
Website
http://exchristian.net/ -
Original page
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/04/sabbatical-or-my-anti-testimony.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- Mary did you know...- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- False Humility- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- Dear Christians: This is revolting -- utterly revolting- ExChristian.Net - Articles
- It Felt So Good To Be Right- Testimonies of Ex-Christians
- Mythology is Mythology. Pass the Eggnog.- ExChristian.Net - Articles
While touting itself as the answer to man's ultimate questions, all it really does is enslave the mind.
If you are trying to say there are good people who happen to be Christians, well then I completely agree. If what you are trying to say is that because there are good people who are Christians that Christianity is true, then I disagree.
Every person who for one reason or another finds themselves captured by a religious cult, finds it very difficult to escape the clutches of that cult. If they ever do escape, they desperately need encouragement.
This site is for those who have escaped or are escaping from the cult known as Christianity.
Now do you get it?
I stumbled across your site and, please forgive me - but I just don't get it (the purpose of your site).
The site purpose is clearly defined as "This forum exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind." But again, I just don't get it.
Why do people need to be "encouraged" to leave religion behind? Why do you really care or matter to you? What is your underlying purpose for this encouragement?
Would the world be a better place if all Christians stopped believing in Christ as our Savior? Are more people, in your opinion, harmed by a true belief in Christ than by folks who don't believe in God? Would crime go down and charitable donations go up if atheism became the norm? Would world peace immediately break out if the last Christian goes to his or her grave? Does it make you feel better when you hear someone say "I believed in Christ all my life but you convinced me - my Christian beliefs are for the birds." I need some "honest from the heart" factual answers to these questions.
I am obviously being provocative but sincere in asking you to explain your real reason for encouraging folks to become ex-Christians. Again I just don't get it...
Sincerely,
Rick
PS: As a Christian, I do care about you. I have an interest in your well-being both physically and spiritually.
DON MILLER - Blue Like Jazz
ROB BELL - Nooma videos, Velvet Elvis
BRIAN MCLAREN - A new kind of Christian, almost any other book.
If you have been dissappointed by fundamentalist or insensitive Christians then try these books. They represent an emerging Christian movement that is attempting to repair some of the brain dead mistakes of the past. This resources represent an emerging movement as followers of Jesus move bravely forward into the new post-modern era.
Dare ya... :-)
A follower of Jesus,
Ben Cathey
That's not an altruistic cause, per doctrine, that's a selfish desire...
Don't believe me? When is the last time a religion has totally donated money to a charity, and refused to have its name associated to the donation... When is the last time, a religion has pushed for a cause, and not plastered its name everywhere for recognition... Religion markets itself for its own purposes, and typically requires someone to give up something in order to receive something, i.e., one gives up their natural reasoning ability, to receive help from the church... Religions are co-dependent institutions by and far exceeding the rare ones that are truly in the background and not pounding the drum of "You're all going to pay, if you don't do it our way."...
What's wrong with encouraging people to do it alone, and ask for help from friends who don't require something in return, except honesty... Fanatic Religious underpinnings would be gone long ago, if the marketers for these religious beliefs, didn't exist in a democracy, with "enterprise"...
I have to accept the BS of enterprising co-dependent religions because I live in a democracy, however, as an educated consumer, I get the choice to call it BS and not buy into the madness...
The BS is spreading from this nation accross the globe, and competing with other BS religions... where the demographic targets, are the poor and uneducated... I suppose there must exist a comforting body, for those who have no "hope" that they will do anything in life, and therefore need to look beyond this reality... Point is, why not give "hope" in the here and now, instead of focusing on the afterlife...
Oh, and Abrahamic religions are death cults... There is more Value in death, and the rewards immediately following death, than there is in "Life"...
And regarding recreation of religious views, in order to bring Christianity into the modern-era... That in itself is admission, that Christianity was BS from the beginning, and needs to be overhauled... I suppose there will be a marketing campaign for the next few hundred years, addressing the billions of people who have been lied to, and many butchered mistakenly...
Oh, perhaps not, that would undermine the credibility of those who are creating some "new" and "improved" religion, using the same unprovable icon, Jesus, who by all accounts in the bible, was a coward, liar, blasphemer, etc...
Why not drop the whole "Jesus" precept, and start with Values... oh, that's right, then one religion would have nothing more to offer than the next, and its hard to compete without a unique twist and beneficial reward... Religions are nothing but businesses selling propaganda to the masses, in order to gain power and influence...
I was looking for info on candy canes and wound up here. I am a "believer" and I agree with you about religion. I predictably don't, however, agree with most of the rest. You make a lot of references to things written ABOUT the Bible as a source of your disillusionment. That's too bad. I'll try not to irritate you with the stock Scripture references and religious sayings. I just have a couple of questions.
Isn't it contradictory on the one hand to say that you have very few absolute answers and then on the other to say that you are an Athiest? In order to be an actual Athiest you have to profess that you are sure that there is no God and to do so requires absolute knowledge. If there is the slightest chance that anywhere in the vast body of knowledge that you don't possess there could be absolute proof of God's existence, then an intellectually honest person cannot be an Athiest, only an Agnostic. Possibly a subtle distinction but words are the means we define our thoughts.
Also, you characterized all "Abrahamic" religions as cults of Death. The topic of "religions" aside, my Bible says that Jesus came that we might have life abundantly. I also don't know, nor do I feel the need to know, about Arminianism, Calvinism, Darbyite or any other of the intellectual tags MEN have put on their particuler brand of Biblical interpretation. I find it is challenging enough to know Christ and Him crucified.
Dave, I pray that God will reveal the Truth to you.
May God Bless You and Your Family
Bryan Stevens
I do not believe is a negative proposition. I am NOT saying I believe there is no god, I am simply stating that it is up to the theist to provide evidence that their particular god is real.
Ultimately everyone is born an atheist - no one has a built in belief in any religion, god, myth, etc. All people are taught about religion, god, myth, etc., by their parents, neighbors, culture, upbringing, and so on.
For example, if you were born in a Muslim country, it is quite likely that you would be praying to Allah. Since you were born in a Christian nation (my assumption here - please correct me if I'm wrong), then you would likely believe that Christianity is the correct religion and that your "god" (the one you've crafted in your mind) is "the god."
Feel free to keep praying for me but I think you're wasting your time. If your God truly has "unconditional love" for me and those like me who do not believe in him/her/it, then I don't have a thing to worry about. Unconditional love is, after all, UNCONDITIONAL, right?
Since I don't know if you were referring to Dave8 or WM Dave, I'll just throw my two cents in :-) There is only "one" Universal absolute I know of, and its called "Change"... Beyond that, there is the external "Atheist" factor and the "Intrinsic" Atheist factor...
I am "Called" and "Labelled" an Atheist from those of religion, because I am more of a "methodological naturalist", even though I don't proclaim a Universal Absolute... Its not my doing, blame those who feel the need to point fingers at those who are different for that title...
Now, Intrinsically what do I believe as a methodological naturalist... Only what I can empirically measure naturally, now, wait... doesn't that mean that in a sense there isn't a supernatural force? No, I didn't say that, I said... I will test all information provided me, using my faculties, tools, and all assetts available, however, all of these tools to my "natural" knowledge, reside in this Natural reality... and, since I don't have access to a metaphysical meter, I'll have to accept by default that I currently have "zero" knowledge of a supernatural entity... That's a Personal Absolute Truth... based on first hand experience...
I'm willing for you to provide me information however, that I can measure metaphysically... is that possible? So, its not that I claim a Supernatural entity doesn't exist... its... at this time, I have been provided nothing metaphysical as proof, and am not willing to blindly follow those who have placed their "faith" in another person whom they trusted... I trust my Self, and I want "first" hand experience, if that isn't forthcoming, then, at this point in time... it doesn't exist... I don't rule out the future, who knows what the future holds... If someone has Evidence for the future, in this life, or beyond, I'm listening... until then... I'm just content with this Natural reality... and not making it more than it is... I mean, I look out at the stars with awe, and feel great that I am part of the bigger whole of the Natural Universe... Its my family... I experience it daily, and its tangible...
Bryan: "If there is the slightest chance that anywhere in the vast body of knowledge that you don't possess there could be absolute proof of God's existence, then an intellectually honest person cannot be an Athiest, only an Agnostic. Possibly a subtle distinction but words are the means we define our thoughts."
Again, I don't label my Self as an Atheist, the less educated do that for me... Personally, I agree, I don't have all the knowledge in the Universe, however, I am willing to continue the search... the Religious believe they already hold their Universal Absolute Truth... i.e., a SuperNatural God does in "Fact" exist... If one wants to crush the illiterate cause, then religion is going to be in for a rude awakening...
Being a Methodological Naturalist, again, I don't presuppose anything... Presuppositions are assumed by most "all" religions, and Other philosophical belief systems which hold Universal Absolute Truths... True, our language is our means of communication, and tis why, I wait for personal experience, it reduces the likelihood of transferrance error when commuting thoughts or ideas...
Is a Methodological Naturalist akin to an Agnostic? Well... not from my humble perspective... An Agnostic makes the "claim" that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive at some point in time. I tend view my belief on the spectrum, to be between Agnosticism and Ontological Naturalism (Atheism)... Because, I actually don't just leave it as "inconclusive" evidence for or against... I am willing to state there is total conclusive "evidence" for me, at this point in my "life" that a supernatural god doesn't exist... What separates the Methodological Naturalist and Ontological Naturalist is the Ontological Naturalist claims, that there will "never" be, in the future, evidence for or against a supernatural/metaphysical entity...
Some don't know philosophy in depth, and are content to making statements of "soft" or "hard" Atheism... however, those terms seems to be a measure of "Conviction", and I just assume that everyone should be totally convinced of their beliefs, one way or another... If someone is "soft" in their beliefs, then they are not quite settled on a belief system, and are still searching...
Currently, I have disavowed hate groups, and intolerant belief systems, and so, have become a Hard-core Methodological Naturalist... If you want to label me an Atheist, I suppose its your choice, but... your label, doesn't presuppose me to a belief system based on "Universal Absolutes"...
Bryan: "Also, you characterized all "Abrahamic" religions as cults of Death. The topic of "religions" aside, my Bible says that Jesus came that we might have life abundantly."
Bryan, I am well versed, no pun intended, on the bible... historically between socio-political and cultural influence, to linguistical inerpretation using exegisis and eisegesis... I have looked up more Hebrew after leaving the University than I did, while attending a four year Southern Baptist University...
Literally speaking, Jesus committed suicide in order to help out humanity... If Jesus were considered one of the Godhood, then he omnisciently murdered himself in a premeditated manner, becuase he had to power to absolve himself... Jesus came to "die" so that "others" may "benefit"..., he martyred himself, to himself, to absolve himself, for his own mistake... The "Value" of Death and Martyrdom, is quite well documented throughout history and the bible...
One had to die, so that they may live... This elevates "death" above "life"... Such would be the agenda for a Roman Emperor and Roman Church, who needed to sway their citizens to ponder death as heralding some Value, in order to get them to march on to the Crusades... The desire for everlasting "glory", and reward for death, was enough to persuade average citizens to drop their farming tools, and join in the Crusades...
If one cared to look briefly at Adam and Eve's scenario, they were portrayed by the early Roman Church as "Dying" a spiritual death in the garden of Eden... The "spiritual Death" of humanity for all eternity, was overcome, by the "Death" of the creator... One Death was overcome by Another Death... Death, is throughout the bible, and the Jewish God is at the helm in the TaNaKh (Hebrew OT), most times... The Slaughter of innocents, to Glorify God, i.e., Death is Valuable...
Bryan: "I find it is challenging enough to know Christ and Him crucified."
I find it challenging to believe Christ crucified himself as an omniscient deity... Perhaps, the Jews were correct, that Jesus not The Jewish Messiah, and is why the Hebrew OT messianic prophesies were never fulfilled, i.e., the establishment of the Third Temple, the Messiah being of the house of David (Jesus was born of a Spirit, with no biological father), etc., etc...
Bryan, I believe everyone has the right to their beliefs, as Personal Truth... In the end, when someone pushes a religious Universal Absolute as a fact to the masses to persuade, I tend to just ask for evidence of such claims, not that I have a need to take someone elses' beliefs away... I personally want to see the evidence, as... I am a methodological naturalist, looking for information that I might have overlooked... So, far, from what I have learned... metaphysical/supernatural beliefs, are totally based on Rationalized Metaphysical Presuppositions, and thus, must be based on 'hope' which extends beyond "Reason"...
I "hope" you and your family are well, and that comes from me, personally... take care...
What exactly are you trying to prove.? unfortunately you are being equally successfull at wasting your time as those who you now oppose.
Lighten up buddy - turn on the tunes.
specifically try "get over it" by the Eagles. that really sums it up
I'm glad I found your site. I too am an atheist, particularly a secular humanist. If I may answer some other people's questions to you, in my opinion, the reason to encourage people to leave religion is that religion causes more harm than good. It breeds hatred, intolerance and intolerance while preaching love-- but in practice it is only love if you tow the line. Keep up the good work, Dave.
A good honest resource is www.doesgodexist.com
A scientist and former Athiest - perhaps from birth
Christopher
Feel free to post on my blog. Sometimes my faithdoubt shows up there. I wish you the best in the journey.
No one is forcing anyone to read the materials on this site.
If you don't want your daughter reading these things, well... then make a parental decision.
If you'll allow me a little observation on raising kids, I am a grandfather and still have teenage children at home. As much as I might I want each of them to think or do certain things, they have a habit of reminding me that they have minds of their own. I'd wager that one day soon you'll find out that your daughter will make many decisions that may very well contradict your own. That's life.
Have a nice day.
"I find your commentary disturbing."
Good, maybe it is making you think. Imagine that!
"My daughter is currently having difficulties with belief and non-belief. I believe you are only complicating things more."
My guess is your daughter is lifting her head out of the sand. Sounds like she is coming to grips with the fact that myth makes for interesting reading at times, but real life is much more to be desired. I hope she is able to free herself from religion and lead a happy life.
"Life is simple."
Well you have that right. We are born, we live and we die, just like everything on the planet. It is simple, and fun, as long as we avoid the trap of religion.
"God exists ... (typical xtian stuff deleted to save space) You do not have to be a fanatical believer or non believer."
Then why are you such a fanatic?
"Your ideas are disturbing and terrifying. I truely hope that before your physical body dies you allow god to forgive you for trying to lead us sheep into the wrong path."
Oh you sad little woman. The ideas here are not what is terrifying you, but the fact that the ideas shake your beliefs and make you think. You have opened your eyes ever so slightly, and the light is blinding you. Don't be afraid; are your beliefs so weak they cannot withstand the light of day?"
"Life does not have to be hard. You however are making it hard for my daughter to stop obesssing over faith and non-faith. Please stop."
Life is not hard dear, you are the one that seems to be making it so for yourself. Your daughter is just thinking for herself. It is part of what makes humans special creatures. We have the ability to seek truth. We have the capacity to reason. Would you really want anything different for your daughter?
"Allow our children to make up their own minds and not be persuaded by someone who cannot make up his own mind. Sincerely, Elaine"
That is exactly what this site and many others do. We post and exist so when people of all ages begin to seek, they will be able to make an informed decision. They will have alternatives to the prison of religion. They will have the ability to be free. Pretty cool huh?
Onanite
You end your post by claiming that you a "scientist and former Atheist". I find it exceedingly hard to believe that you are a scientist of any kind, given the form and substance of your arguments, and I suspect that you were a rather ill-informed atheist (which you cannot even spell, by the way). Let's look at some of the things you said.
Christopher: "For instance we know that there is a beginning to time and all universes, solar systems, drians, DNA etc... spin at the same constant geometric angle..."
First, please explain in detail what it means to "spin at the same constant geometric angle". I can assign a fairly obvious meaning to that phrase in the context of galaxies and planetary orbits, but that obvious meaning is clearly contradicted by myriad observations. Moreover, your utterance seems to be completely meaningless when applied to DNA. Therefore, I strongly suspect that you are simply stringing scientific-sounding words together without a clue as to what they actually mean.
Christopher: "- there is no 'scientific' explanation for this phenomenon. Nature or physics holds no answer,..."
No scientist I know would make such a silly statement. How do you know that "Nature or physics holds no answer"? Please explain how you would design an experiment to decide whether or not an answer could (in principle) be forthcoming?
Christopher: "If looked at objectively one can only identify these traits as evidence of common design such as the brush strokes of a master painter."
If one looks "objectively"? Is that what you are doing? All you are doing is making a loose analogy, which proves absolutely nothing (aside from your lack of objectivity, perhaps).
Christopher: "There are also the scientific laws of probability when applied to infinite space/time and the finite amount of mass or particles that exist at any one time - they tell us that the primordial soup theory for the beginning of life is in fact impossible."
What on Earth are you talking about?! You are no scientist. What are your credentials? The above sentence is a complete mishmash of nonsense.
Christopher: "We have recently found out that we share almost all of our DNA with dogs! That is not an amazing coincidence it is proof of a common design philosophy - when looked at purely objectively."
Okay, now it's becoming plainly obvious that you have no scientific background in biology either. If you had even a passing familiarity with the theory of evolution you would know that the enormous amount of genetic information that we share with other organisms (even plants and bacteria) is 100% consistent with, and predicted by, descent from a common ancestor.
Christopher: "Did you know that the law of probability prove you have a better chance of digging up a fully functioning B-2 bomber that just fell together than even the simplest single cell organism?"
Law of probability!? Which law would that be, Christopher? The Law of Large Numbers? The Central Limit Theorem, perhaps? Which? Not only does this show a total lack of mathematical acumen, it also shows a complete lack of critical thinking. It indulges the same shallow and fallacious analogies that creationists have been touting for centuries. If you were any kind of scientist you would realize that you are comparing entirely different phenomena, with wholly different priors.
Christopher: "Yet if you did discover sucha jet you would never wonder how it evolved naturally from other earlier forms of aviation, you would assume it had been designed and built. Who is making the 'great leap of faith' now?"
You are, by assuming that your "jet" is somehow representative of all highly-complex artifacts when in fact it was chosen PRECISELY BECAUSE you *know* that it is both complex AND designed. Moreover, as it belongs to a radically different class of objects (man-made artifacts), it does not allow you to conclude anything at all about the class of living things.
Christopher: "True science and historical data have only proven to man how wrong he can be over and over again."
Any scientist is aware of the fact that ALL scientific conclusions are provisional. It seems that this comes as a revelation to you. Once again, this indicates to me that you are not a scientist.
Christopher: "Just look at the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah,..."
This is abysmally sloppy thinking. The Bible was written in a historical context, hence it is to be expected that it will refer at times to historically real events and places. Novels are often filled with historically accurate references too. Yet such references in no way validate any incredible claim made in a book.
Christopher: "I[f] we examine the facts of science and history objectively we can only discover that there was a designer and that there is an accurate record of his dealings with humans."
Again, you smugly imply that you are capable of this "objective" inquiry while, presumably, those who disagree with you are not. Your entire attitude is at odds with a scientific approach, which eschews any such boasting of objectivity, and simply strives to ATTAIN as much objectivity as humanly possible. Moreover, it strives to do so in as transparent a manner as possible. Your prose is the very antithesis of that. It is mere dogma, or hearsay at best.
Christopher: "There are thousands of examples more but I have not the time."
Right...
Christopher: "I encourage you all to be honest with yourselves in your evaluation."
Have you been honest? You claim to be a scientist. On what grounds?
Christopher: "...it takes much more time and enrgy to try and disprove the existance of a God and only very little 'faith' to belive in a God...."
Logic is apparently not your forte either. If you were a scientist of any variety, you would realize that one cannot disprove any proposition involving supernatural entities. Hence, following the vast majority of Christian apologists, you have it quite backwards. Yet more evidence that you have no scientific background at all.
Christopher: "...if we strictly look at the FACTS not the theories. Theories and minutes my how they fall..."
How profound. I guess as a "scientist" you have learned to ignore all those ephemeral theories and just stick with the "facts", right? Geeesh.
Christopher: "A scientist and former Athiest [sic]..."
There is not a single syllable in your post that indicates you have any background in science or mathematics at all. I've seen other frauds here, masquerading as mathematicians and scientists. They are easy to spot. They give themselves away because they confuse mere terminology with scientific reasoning.
Christopher, I think you too are a fraud. Every sentence gives it away.
"on some aspect of relgion that seperates them from the others? You do not
like one aspect so turn your back to it and place your focus in another
aspect."
I understand what you are saying... but what i wanted to say with that is that denomiations, etc... does not belong to what jesus taught 'cause even jesus was not a religious leader nor a priest in human terms.... there are many things that can be discussed about the contradictions in the bible and it may even be possible that there are mistakes in the translations but in the worst of the cases is just a matter of believing a matter of faith. because even for me there is a possibility of 50 and 50 that God is real i guess i prefer to believe... Anyway changing the subject after all this nonsense, my point is that i can be a believer and be in disagreement with the denominational ideas and the clergy and i understand what you say that by being against denominations I am creating another one ... but i am saying denominations do not belong to the truth why instead can't they join the best of each other and be one i guess because of the leadership... but i guess that is an utopia too!!! so the only thing i can do is believe in jesus and his teachings and do good to our neighbor. the fist is my decision of faith without following any ideological standard and the second is a universal rule, call it morality if you want
leadership or hierarchy that denominations and religions, they make the
source dirty and filthy by adding or taking what they don't need "
Sal also said : > "The only thing I can say for sure is that Jesus is God
and the Bible is true..."
Where to start on this ... I guess the "truth" of the bible. Sal, anyone
that opens their eyes and simply looks at the information available cannot
hold that the bible is true. First is the contradictions in the bible. It
simply amazes me that xians still claim there are no contradictions. Do a
google search of "Bible contradictions" and you will get an eyeful. You
cannot deny this because the contradicting passages are described and you
can look them up yourself.
Next is the bible's authenticity. Again, search the internet and there is so
much proof that much of the bible has been changed over the years due to bad
copying, mistranslation, or purposeful alterations. As an example, the story
of "he who hath no sin, cast the first stone" does not even appear in the
earliest translations of the bible and were added in much later.
Next is the bible's plagerism of other religions. Many of the stories and
events of the bible can be found to predate the bible and their sources can
be traced to other civilizations that existed prior to the writing of the
bible. In many cases these stories have been hijacked and outright stolen
from others. The story of Noah, the story of adam and eve. Again, the
information highway can provide much to anyone willing to search for truth.
The bible simply is not a book of truth. A collaberation of stories trying
to pass off various moral tales would be more accurate, but then again,
there are just as much immoral works in the bible as well (killing babies,
intollerance of others, murder, rape, incest, etc).
I applaud you for recognizing that the institution of religion is corrupt
and that each and every denomination was created to fulfill the ideal of
specific individuals, and that for much of it the corruption is based in
individual desires and greeds. Organized religion is simply a tool to
control the masses and make easy money. However I would point out that what
you do is very similar to the very same claims you make against them.
You have chosen portions of religion (Jesus, God, the Bible) that you like
and focus your belief on those while denying other aspects of religion that
you do not like. Is this not what they have done? Each denomination focusing
on some aspect of relgion that seperates them from the others? You do not
like one aspect so turn your back to it and place your focus in another
aspect.
It's a game of pick and choose, even on an individual level. Do you not see
the contradictions in that?
i have been reading your anti-testimony and pondering on it for a good hour or so and was just overcome by a great sadness because, unfortunately, some of the things you said were true.
When a person professes to be a christian they are now under a microscope. And when their lives are marred by foolish decisions, ignorance and hatred, well, the world notices. You certainly did.
Why aren't christians' lives any different than the rest of the worlds? that is such a good question. You have challenged me, a follower of Jesus, to take a closer look at myself.
I re-read you anti-testimony for a second time. You wrote that you cried and cried the night you prayed the "prayer" in your room those many years ago. Why were you crying? was it out of fear? or something else?
I re-read you anti-testimony for a second time. You wrote that you cried and cried the night you prayed the "prayer" in your room those many years ago. Why were you crying? was it out of fear? or something else?
You wrote: “One of the biggest newly discovered contradictions I could not rectify was whether or not Judas threw his money into the temple and hanged himself or bought a field and fell headlong into it.”
Matthew records that Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself. The chief priests then used the “blood money” to buy a plot of land (Matt 27:2-4); Luke, the writer of Acts, records that Judas acquired (the NIV renders the original greek word ktah'-om-ahee as “bought” rather than the more appropriate “acquired”) a plot of land and fell head long into it (Acts 1:18).
By definition, for two statements to be a contradiction, both cannot be true at the same time. But you see, this is why this isn’t a contradiction.
These two statements are eyewitness accounts. If you ask a person investigating a crime scene, he or she will tell you that no two eyewitness accounts are ever exactly identical. If they WERE this actually lowers the credibility of the statements! That is what makes the Judas account even more likely to be true. This is how you can piece both events together:
Judas threw the money at the chief priests, went away and hung himself, the rope broke around his neck and he then fell headlong on the plot of land below, splitting his insides open (Acts 1:18). You could just imagine the horror of those who discovered his body this way. The chief priests bought this plot of land and was later named the Field of Blood by the people in Jerusalem. Judas acquired this land because it was bought primarily as a burial site for strangers (Matt 27:7) and he was probably the first to be buried there.
p.s. You can check the original greek for yourself at www.greekbible.com which has the original language the NT was written in.
So if the Bible said Judas was torn to pieces by wolves in one place, and that he fell into a volcano in another place, then those two testimonies would just HAVE to be true, right?
Anonymous: "This is how you can piece both events together...the rope broke around his neck and he then fell headlong on the plot of land below, splitting his insides open (Acts 1:18)."
I can also harmonize the above two scenarios: Judas was standing on the side of an active volcano crater when he was attacked by wolves. Just as they tore his arms off, he fell into the volcano. See? No contradiction.
Of course, it would be quite odd for one witness to fail to mention the volcano, and the other witness to fail to mention the wolves. Just like it would be odd for one of your so-called witnesses to fail to mention the noose, and the other to fail to mention the ghastly spilling of guts.
You also conveniently overlook the fact that one account says that he *hanged* himself, which suggests that he succeeded. In your scenario it would have been more accurate to say that he had *attempted* to hang himself, would it not? Oh wait... We can still get this to work. The rope broke after he was actually dead! Only THEN did his guts spill on the ground! Right?
Good grief. What would the Bible have to say in order for you to conclude that it's not reliable?
Now we can speculate lots of reasons on why it fell; maybe it fell because of decay or someone cut it down and by that time the body was in a decomposed position. We do not know that part for sure.
But we do know that BOTH accounts say that the field was later called the Field of Blood (Matt 27:8, Acts 1:19). Now I haven’t seen too many hangings myself, but doesn’t death result from strangulation or lack of air on the part of the victim? Why would they call it Field of Blood?
No because then I would not be relying on the accounts themselves, now would I?
Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Luke does not assert that Judas did not hang himself prior to his fall” Therefore, the verses actually supplement, rather than contradict, each other. Matthew gives the METHOD by which Judas carried out his own death, while Luke reports the END RESULT.
But thanks for the "volcano" examples. They were humorous:)
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that the fall was the reason for his death. He did succeed in hanging himself.
Besides, I've heard that worn out apologetic a hundred times, and for many a year I even tried to believe it. I'm ashamed to say I even preached it to others.
However, both stories cannot be true - period. Since there is some measure of inaccuracy in at least one of the stories, that would suggest that the Bible is not inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant in even one sentence, then there is error, and that means it is NOT the word of a god.
Case closed.
And would you please post under some pseudonym besides anonymous. Trying to answer a half-dozen anonymous posters, who may or may not be the same person, is annoying.
Ah, no, such inconsistencies do not make the stories true. Inconsistencies just make the stories inconsistent. The TRUTH is unknown.
You say the stories compliment each other - each being completely true, with some details left out.
And how do you know that this is what the writers of Matthew and Luke intended? Having a hypothesis that somehow justifies your belief is fine and dandy, but it is a far cry from truth.
Or how about this scenario: My wife said she spent the evening with friends, which was true. What she failed to mention was that she also slept with a lover. Now, since she left out an important part of the story, did she tell the truth?
OK, maybe that's not a perfect example, but the evidence remains that Judas either hanged himself in a field he purchased, or he had a nasty fall in a field that someone else purchased. More than likely, neither story has a shred of truth in it and the writers of the two gospels simply felt that Judas needed to end up dead after his horrible "mortal" sin of kissing God on the lips.
"The Betrayal of Jesus - Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q) or the Didache.
Judas first appears in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of Mark, the oldest of the canonical gospels, where he is appointed by Jesus as one of the twelve apostles. In this passage we are tipped off in advance of Judas’ treachery. Matthew and Luke repeat Mark almost verbatim, however, the author of John adds something. In John 6:70-71 Jesus announces that one of the twelve, Judas, is a devil. In John 12:4-6 we learn of another of Judas’ character flaws. He was also a thief.
As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."
Judas proceeds to identify Jesus by way of that infamous kiss, and that’s the last we hear of him in the gospels of Mark, Luke and John. However, the author of Matthew doesn’t let it drop there. Apparently Judas’ conscience got the better of him because according to Matthew 27:3-5 he made a sincere attempt to repent but was denied forgiveness. In a gesture of frustration he returned the money and went and hanged himself. Matthew goes on to say that the chief priests and the elders used the money to buy a piece of land. Because it was bought with blood money, the land became known as "The Field of Blood."
In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the son of man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.
Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone. In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.
Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the missing apostle was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confound the reader, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection, that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."
Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30. Here Jesus tells his apostles that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story was invented by the writer of Mark.
For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here the apostle Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution as an indispensable element of the passion story.
The story of Judas Iscariot, although obvious fiction, has lead to some tragic consequences. Judas is deliberately portrayed as a caricature intended to confirm the very worst misconceptions about the Jewish people. As a result, for almost two thousand years the Jews have been unjustly persecuted and vilified because their forefathers were accused of slaying Jesus, a mythical god-man whose very existence remains highly questionable. How long must superstition with all its evils rule and curse the modern world? How long must people be held hostage to what is obviously a myth and nothing more?"
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html
"Argument By Selective Observation:
Also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. For example, a state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. Or, the claim "Technology brings happiness". (Now, there's something with hits and misses.)
Casinos encourage this human tendency. There are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. This makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#half_truth
For some reason we cannot survive without imaginary beings to worship and they forgive us of our sins, whatever a sin is, no one knows, but it says in the bible that all have sinned, so it must be that being born is a sin.
Hang around h&h30.
"I am so happy I found this sight! It has helped me so much and will continue to help me. Coming out of a cult is hard, I'm still dealing with my fear of burning in hell for all eternity. But I'm working on it and this site is a Godsend hehe"
Posted by hoof_and_horn30 1/19/2006 10:08:29 PM
It is not altogether unlikely that this site is Godsent!
I know that if I were God and gave people a brain, I would be real pleased with those who used it!
Dan
mrs concerned mother... have fun in "heaven" hehe
I, like you, became "de-Christianized" around 12 years of age, when I began to read and think for myself. I still believe in God, but I also truly believe that God created man and man returned the favor.
However, I truly believe that organized religion is an obvious political structure formed to control minds and gain power, and it has done an excellent job. I once thought that it was a better opiate than cocaine, having fewer side effects, until I realized that right wing Christians kill in the name of God--that's no different than drug dealers killing for a buck.
As to needing a "Savior," I have to ask why. I suppose it is because Christianity sells the masses on "original sin," causing the disease, and then offers the cure. Original sin aside, there is no reason for a Savior. Not to say that people don't "sin," there's a heck of a lot of bad stuff out there. I, personally, believe that those people will be held accountable in some sort of afterlife, but no "Savior" is going to give them a free pass to help them avoid personal responsibility.
I've often thought that if the historical Jesus could return today, he would go berserk. He was totally against the loud public display of religiosity by the Pharisees, so what would he think of people praying out loud in restaurants as a public display of their religion? If he was against charging fees for converting currency to buy temple sacrifices, what would he think of church sponsored raffles and bingo games?
Most of all, what would he think of spreading hatred toward people who have different beliefs?
On a closing note, I had to laugh when I visited a Catholic church social hall recently to have a health screening and saw examples of how the "Virgin Mary" was, according to poster exhibits, exemplary of a devout follower of the Eucharist. The statement read, in part, "The Holy Mother embodied the Eucharist by practicing it every Sunday." Obviously, the ignorant priest was not schooled in the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by the Catholic Church, much less the idea that church rituals were not developed during the "Virgin's" time.
For those who wonder why I used quotations around "Virgin," I suppose no one has brought up the fact that when Greek or Roman soldiers returned from a long campaign to find a little baby in the house, the wife would go into great theatrics to explain that a "god" had visited her to cause her to conceive. Sound familiar? Guess old Joseph was gullible, but he seems to have been a good father for the other guy's kid.
Keep up the good work. I, for one, do "get" your site.
Joseph would not have confronted
a man of god, but he might would have killed the soldier. No one questions priests even to this very day.
As far as believing in a god, I think there is something way beyond our ability to comprehend this force, thats why it's called a god, but there is a reason that every living thing eventually dies, we do not know why, what ever created us has control on the DNA strain recepters controling life span, whatever it is, it's way beyond our ability to imagine, what it is. The bible writers tried to impress the peoples of their time that they knew all about this force, but when you read the bible you can tell it's all a bunch of made up human boloney.
This force is much far greater than man's ability to explain in a book, man can only explain what his brain will allow it to comprehend.
You are right there is no need for a savior, man existed long before a savior was born. If this life creator put a limit on the amount of years a person could live or a punishment of death, if it was because of original sin, then all sins are paid for at death, thats it, all other parts of the bible have been embellished to instill biblical morals and to get paid for it for brainwashing services.
hi!
Thanks ever so much for sharing your testimony with the world!
Personally,i found great personal comfort in reading of your fall into atheism! And i'm a Christian at that?
In reality,you and i already know,dont we?that you never got to that place of personal salvation in the first place(BECAUSE YOU HAVE JUST EXPLAINED IT SO IN YOUR LETTER) Because in my bible,so also in yours!it is impossible to get the chance to be an "IN-AND-OUT-CHRISTIAN!
Your theology talks of an "in and out belief" in the church one minute,and "out and in" of the church the next minute? permit me.(thats a micky mouse kind of faith?)It might sound good to your ears,and your friend Mr R,DAWKINS?
How can you fall down from somewwhere you obviously werent there in the first place? its silly. You even claim you wernt there in the first place?
To fall down from somewhere,a person must FIRST be up there?
Now!why do i say this?
Well,for one!
Your fall from your obvious counterfiet faith,clearly proves that,that certain Prophecy of Paul's,were he warned the young church over 2000 years ago,is now in your case,Sadly!coming to fruition!
You will obviously know all about those warnings in your(many)bibles,were the apostles spoke of, and put it on record,to warn the young church,that in the far distant future(about the "Age of enlightenment")
Thats the period where the cancer of UNBELIEF,AND EVOLUTION wrought its evil poison,when its man made false scriptures gained entrance into the christian church.
In my opinion,you should delight in fullfilling biblical Prohecy PERSONALLY! yOU ARE ONLY CONFIRMING TO YOUR READERS that what paul warned of,is actually coming true in your case! How did the Apostles know all about you? how did they know that you would first confess christ,but then blashpheme him if the prophecy wasnt true? (there will come a time in the churchs history,were there will be seen to be a falling away from the Christian faith) thats the famous quote isnt it?
You will know all about those warnings,because you will know all about those scriptures.If you have been reading calvin,the wesleys,bunyan,etc,etc! of course you will know.
Dont get me wrong!
I take no delight in your departure from somewhere that you were never even at in the first place?(even though the way you write about this ghost faith in christ,you might even have convinced yourself that you really where there?)but of course,going off your obvious enmity towards God,it just proves The Apostle Paul's prophecy was and still is Genuine
Why should i,or anyother God fearing person fear for you,or indeed even be sad for you? You clearly arnt feeling fearfull,or sad for yourself! so why should we?
Is there a God? Say you are right, what happens then. Well, we are All worm food when we die. It is over. What we leave is who we are and who we touched in or brief life.
But, let us just assume there is a GOD, those that deny that God would have a serious price to pay in the afterlife, if there is a God, there maybe a Hell. Should we research for the truth, through historical documents, Spiritual book reading research. Study all the different religions,discover all the good and bad of them all. Find out where they came from. What they believe.
I guess that would be work though, and that would take a lot of time. We might not like what we find. We might even have to change our belief. We might even have to change the way we live and act.
I would say most religious people can not even back up their beliefs with 'proof'. Do not all of us need to have an answer why we believe what we believe?
Or is it just okay to say I believe something just because that is what I want to believe.
Say I drive down any road never caring sbout speed limits. Does it change the law wether I know what the speed limit is or not. If I get pulled over, can I say "I did not know", Will that get me off the hook? The law is the law, there is a price to breaking laws, wether man's laws or God's laws. A lawyer once told me, "Ignorance of the Law will never get you off the hook for breaking the law. We all have an obligation to know the law. That is why laws are written. So the people know their bounders"
If there is no God, how can there be right or wrong? Good or evil?
"If there is no God, how can there be right or wrong? Good or evil?"
Might I suggest that you attend some behavioral science course at your local university, college or jr. college! You will see how there is order in the societies of primates as well as the majority of all mammals. There is acceptable (right or good) behavior, which is rewarded, and there is unacceptable (wrong or evil) behavior, which is punished. To think that we as humans are "special" is to be completely blinded by egotism and ignorance of the world around us.
I really understand the purpuse of your site! When I was in the process of wanting to leave the church, and in a way leaving my friends and everything I built my world upon, I was looking for support on the internet.
If I talked to my christian friends, they were just worried, prayed for me, and treated me like Satan had influenced my life, trying to get me back on track.
If I talked to my non-christian friends, they didn't understand at all, thinking that I just "had to leave it all, because it was obviously false". And it wasn't that easy, I just had to find the answers, and the only thing I could really trust were the Bible, so I had to go from there.
Just want to encourage you to keep writing and telling your "anti-testimony", because people like me can find support in this.
I recognise a lot in the "anti-testimony", even though you had a much longer process than I had. What strikes me is that we both read a lot. I had to smile when you wrote you spent a lot of money on books, like you were trying to convice yourself that there had to be someone out there, who had felt your doubts and could explain it in a way that could help you to keep your faith.
Maybe it wasn't how you meant, but that was exactly what I did.Going to different bible schools, different churches, ordering books from the internet. Knowing, that Christianity had to be right, in some way, I just had to find something that could take away the doubts I felt.
It's a long story. But when I finally played with the thought that maybe, maybe, MAYBE I had to listen to what I felt inside- that maybe christianity wasn't the "truth", not ignoring my doubts anymore, then everything finally changed. I finally made a decision to "choose myself before christianity".
Maybe it sounds strange, but at that time I was going under, being depressed and so on.
Felt like a total failure. Always seen my personal relationship with Christ as the best thing that had happened to me, talking to Jesus everyday knowing that he was my best friend and God was my father, speaking in tongues, been a leader for the youth groups, preaching, leading a lot of my non-christian friends to Christ.. yeah, you know. I just KNEW I would preach the gospel for the rest of my life, that was my purpose.
And then, I had to let everything go and be true to myself, leaving the friends that couldn't accept what I had done.
It was 5 years ago now, and I'm feeling better than ever. I really value to have a life where I can live on the outside what I feel on the inside.
well, just wanted to say thanks!
Please feel invited to join the forums at Ex-Christian.Net.
Not EVERYTHING in the world black and white, and by that I there are things in the world that God lets us influence on our own. Well I know that most of you who come here don't believe in this stuff, but in my opinion, (everyone gets their own opinion now, right? :P) He gave us free will, the choice to decide what we wanted or didn't want... and yes, to decide whether we accept Christianity or not. Besides, who on earth likes having something forced on them? I know I'm being over dramatic, but when the African-American had laws enforced on them by the whites of the time, they came out and... sort of fought back against, and where we are today.
And... I just wanted to say, if the current "worldly" religious situation were flipped, (That is, Muslims being the greater denomination and Christians being the minority), the extremists (like those in http://www.afa.net/default.asp) would be the terrorists.
and err, yes, I'm like a profffesional grama natzi :P
I attend Liberty University (before you go puke, listen to the rest of what Ive got). I kinda stumbled across your site while writing a paper against the witnessing methods they teach here.
I just wanted to let you know that you have actually helped my thinking. So many evangelicals want to stop knowledge alltogether. Thats just ridiculous.
And also, to the Christians who read this (I am one myself). Stop trying to bash what hes saying, and evaluate yourself. Think. I mean really think. About your faith and why you have it. If you cant really answer these questions then you dont need to comment here.
Im glad that your seeking, and questioning. I did it for years and ended up at Christianity. I came out of an atheist home. (It bugs the heck out of my mom). I question alot of what they teach me here. But I do want to learn more of the Bible, and how we got it, and actually think about it and God.
(to readers)Im not gonna tell you to think one thing or another. But just keep considering, and dont start from the presupposition that the Bible is true or false. But dont rule one out.
In love,
scott
ps Ive got $8.50 right now, my friend owes me some cash. The ten will be on the way! I really like that whole thing to. it made me think.
Another thought for your consideration: we all come from atheist homes.
Well, let me qualify that a bit: we all come into the world as atheists. There is not one single baby born who comes out of the birth canal praising the Lord. None of them believe in a god, know of a god, think about a god - they all have to be taught about a god by other humans.
Good luck at Liberty.
"we all come into the world as atheists. There is not one single baby born who comes out of the birth canal praising the Lord. None of them believe in a god, know of a god, think about a god."
Just for argument's sake, I don't think there is any way you can actually prove the above statement. It seems true enough, though (I'll give you that).. but by the same rationale, does a baby (prior to birth) have any concept of his/her biological father? No. Said baby must learn and come to know who "father" really is. But whether or not that ever actually takes place, i.e. if the baby dies inside the womb, with no knowledge, no understanding of "father," does that change the fact that father exists? Of course not.
Baby can be born into this world, five senses intact, and live his/her life, experiencing life and processing life through his/her limited understanding (10% of his/her brain), and then baby can conclude that his/her experience is ALL THERE IS - not once taking into consideration differing points of view, differing experiences, and differing philosophies.
The scriptures say "the fool has said in his heart THERE IS NO GOD" and - whether it can be lab tested or not, whether your experience (as you process it) leads you to believe something contrary - there may very well be a father.
The fact remains: no one is born religious. No one is born a journalist. No one is born a chemist, doctor, etc.
People are born basically knowing nothing and have to be taught everything.
No one is born a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Communist, or Republican or anything else. People learn these concepts and decide to align themselves with these things or not, depending on a variety of influences.
An atheist is someone without a belief in a god. Babies obviously have no beliefs in a god, and are therefore born as atheists. As they grow up most of those babies will most likely adopt the one their parents teach them.
This speaks nothing as the existence of said gods or goddesses, only that to know of such things, it must be taught. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think my point stands.
If the world is based on theories... aren't we all just putting our faith in our theory? And so if by my theory is based on critical thoughts and examinations and my own potentially inconclusive evidence would be say. Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, being a Jehovah Witness, Moonie, Mormon etc. Then isn't this just another theory page?
So your old theory got tested, and you felt it failed, so now you have found perhaps a new theory? But yet you have faith in this theory...
What happens when this theory gets holes poked in it? An anti-testimony to anti-testimony, at some point man, people choose what they believe and stick it through the not so fair weather, and some people need satisfaction elsewhere, and they go where the pastures are greener...
We are all waiting or looking for any hole to be punched through this ‘theory.’ Skepticism is what it’s about.
So many people on this site held the ‘other theory’ so tightly that there was nothing distinguishable between them and the theory.
All they ever wanted was to understand and to know of god better. In that process, hours upon hours and years and years, little holes began to show up in the ‘perfect theory.’ Then larger holes appeared but were ignored. All the holes were ignored and ignored and ignored again until they were finally just too big to be ignored.
Then they [the folks not the holes] prayed; they cried; they begged; and their hearts were broken.
De-conversion is not done with a shrug of a shoulder. It’s not done casually or haphazardly. It’s not: “What shall I be today?” “Well, I was a Christian yesterday. So, today, I think I shall be an atheist.”
De-conversion is confusing, lonely, and terrifying.
Hence this site.
Disclaimer: These are my opinions; I could be wrong.
And, meeting someone with a mind freed from the shackles of religious bondage is not something many "true" believers can easily accept or tolerate. Hence, the plethora of rude evangelistic posts.
Just imagine those who have spent over 30 years in the cult and 10 more addtional years detoxing.
Blessings, Preston Benjamin
Bye again.
Preston what would you be saying if you had never heard of the Bible?
Preston did you know that before 1492 before Columbus discovered America, there had never been a Bible nor a church on American soil?
The Bible was brought over here on a ship, the Bible was transported over here by people, it was not brought over here by God or Jesus.
Did you know that the Bible was written straight out of the Opium capital of the world.
The Native American Indians lived on American soil for thousands of years without a knowledge of a God or Jesus and they never repeated bible verses either like you are, like you've discovered some newly found knowledge.
A god nor Jesus never wrote any part of the bible, it was all written by men, do you see anywhere in the bible that was signed by god or jesus? No!
You might as well learn now, the bible and jesus myth is the biggest hoax and fraud and deception ever played on the world.
....::dualing banjos::....
I pity you. I truly do. Someone, probably your parents, have done you a huge disservice in brainwashing you. My mother attempted it whith me and my sister but we were lucky and escaped.
You are only 13. Hopefully, you will grow up as well as grow smart.
You must have an abysmal existance to be so completely submerged in a fantasy. Alternate universes are for people who can't deal with reality.
You have been robbed of logical thought and have not been allowed to learn to think for yourself. A mind is a terible thing to waste. How very, very sad.
Blessings to you.
Preston.
lol
The him is you, your brain echoing it's thoughts back to itself it's called thought monitoring loop. The people that wrote the bible thought it was from a god, but it just their own thoughts, sorry.
Preston you were born without any knowledge of any god, but yet you chose the bible god why not choose Allah? Because the Bible god is the first one you chose to accept as true.
When you go to sleep, all thoughts of a god and jesus disappear.
When you are unconscious, all thoughts of god and jesus disappear.
When you are dead your brain thoughts cease, all thoughts of god and jesus disappears.
Why is that? Because your brain mimicks what it hears, thats why you speak english, not german, french, etc. You're just mimicking garbage that you've been told is true.
Have fun with your pooka.
Apparently you have this deep "love" for your jesus. What worries me about this is that I feel that what you really need is love for yourself. Sometimes we can go through life looking for things outside of ourselves to fill up an emptiness. Clinging to "jesus" is a really easy way to fill up that emptiness. But by doing so we neglect to take care of our true selves. Be careful about believing that your overwhelming feelings of emotion mean that jesus is real. I myself have witnessed people filled with the so-called holy spirit--speaking in tounges and such. The first time I heard it, it freaked me out! The second time I heard it I thought that the woman beside me was trying to impress me. I believe that the mental states these people are in at the time are some kind of hypnosis, and frankly I don't think it's a very healthy state of mind.
I wonder if anyone has ever told you that it is o.k. for you to love yourself. I wish someone had told me that a long time ago.
I would urge you to spend less time obssessing over jesus, and more time getting to know Preston.
Take care of yourself.
meaning it is practically non-exsistent, right boomslang ;-). I have heard about Allah, Buddah, Mary, and a bunch of the other focuses in religion. And i really don't wanna serve any of them, after i had a taste of Jesus i would never follow any other religion. I sound like a total follow up of my parents, but i really am not, cus they could care less about what God i served. Anyways.. i can't prove crap to you people, so if you wanted me to say you win, if that would really make you feel better, than i will. But im just gonna continue reading lies, cus i really am having alot of fun with my life.
How much have you heard about buddah? Please tell me how much you know about buddhism. If you are serious and responsible person, you should have considerable knowledge about buddhism before you say you do not want to serve any of them. In buddhism you do not serve buddha, you just try to become buddah. If you do not know something, just say you do not know. Don't say your immagination, mr. preston. Don't misunderstand though. I am not buddhist, but i regard buddhism as a great religion which should be seperated from the nasty begotry of xtinity or islam.
It may not be the outcome which you seek, but reading your thoughts makes me motivated to drive myself and other christians to address the shortcomings which you have so thoroughly set out.
As I said, good luck. You'll definitely need it.
~Carolyn
square/circle
married/bachelor
acceptance/conditions
' Get the picture?
Jesus "the Person", IF he existed, is dead...so, no, he won't disappoint anyone.
Sure, the concept of Jesus may be alive---but so is Thor, Zeus, Toth, Allah, Budda, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Great Pumpkin, etc, etc, etc.
Buh-bye.
Praise God, Jesaus is real!!!!
I'm a changed man, I've seen the light!
~~~I was once lost but now I see~~~hmmmmm
Holyshebaslallabamama!!!!!!
LMMFAO----What a Holy Crock Of Shit!
A Million Laughs, Folks!!!
Click on my name if you really want to get saved...lol
I did get to see a cool part of the world, but eventually I realized that Jesus and Christianity are just another phony religion. People believe it -- I know I did -- but it's still just a lie.
Let me just say it's breath of fresh air to run across your site and read your story. My own story is fairly similar to your own, and I, like you have started to try to make sense of my mysterious and alarming backsliding to my friends and family who are still Christian. For now, I've started my own blog to try to convey my experiences, but it's so good to find your site and so many others like it with people just like us who are are recovering fundamentalists, having cast the scales from our eyes and gathered the courage to face both knew knowledge and the fearful unknown!
Best Regards,
Kerry Davis
Webmaster, as a pretty devout christian myself, I just want to take the trouble to comment that your website is highly challenging to people like me...
and went on futher to say
...but reading your thoughts makes me motivated to drive myself and other chrisitians to address the shortcomings which you have so throughly set out.
Ok.......I'm staying up for this sequel. Imma gonna wait for this one to crack and show us True Christianity (tm).
And your site is awesome!
'Jesus "the Person", IF he existed, is dead...'
Haven't you heard?? After 3 days He arose from the dead. While He was gone . . . He went into hell and took the keys of Life and death out of satan's grimy hands...read Revelation 1:18. 'I am He that liveth and was dead and behold I am ALIVE forevermore - and I hold the keys to Life and death.' JESUS is alive. Have you ever heard of anyone sitting in a tub of water with a toaster and hair blower plugged in and living to tell people about it? Well, here I am. JESUS IS LORD!! God gave us choices to make...YOU have a choice to believe or not. You can ACCEPT or REJECT God's love for YOU. IT'S YOUR CHOICE. ~Carolyn
If your God's love is conditional---and it is---then I don't want "His" love. He can save it for all the people he manipulated into loving him back. Or better yet---just have him give whatever would be my share of his "love" to you...'k, hun? Thanks, babe.
Jeebus lubs me, dis I knows, cuz da babble tells me sow.
Jeebus lubs me, dis I know, but if I don't love him and kiss his ass.........BAM, straight to HELL!!
Nothing cracks me up more than hearing xians say that their is such a "loving" religion. What a lie, how delusional they are.
Regards, carol
For 20 years I was raised as a non-denominational Christian and believed everything fervently. However, I'm a computer programmer and have a mind that requires all data to be (or appear to be) sound and accurate. I sought to answer my questions about Christianity, but searching for answers and studying the Bible kept leading to more questions than answers. Eventually I realized that I was purely the result of programming from my religious mother, churches, and religious school. I prayed and begged God to speak to me, show me anything, do anything to me, destroy my life, anything to indicate he was really there. I told him he was really close to losing me. Maybe it's wrong to ask and expect my loving heavenly father to give the smallest indication that he actually exists. He didn't give one, so I gave up.
I expected my life to go into shambles. Just the opposite happened. I was always told that there was great freedom in Christianity, and non-Christians are slaves to sin. But when I committed to de-converting, I felt more free than I had ever felt before. I no longer feel the need to judge normal people simply because they don't think like me. And I feel no pressure to push my beliefs on others who are already good people. Also, I still consider myself a very good person. I'm nicer and more considerate than most people I know, thanks to my upbringing. Christianity at least has some merits in that regard. But religion is not necessary for morality.
My concern is what to do now. I've been so thoroughly fooled and disillusioned, that I now believe it is impossible to know completely what is absolutely true, therefore I claim Agnosticism. Christianity brought meaning and purpose to my life, but now it seems more prudent to simply live in the moment (with an eye to the foreseeable future of course). How have others coped with filling this sense of meaninglessnesss? It seems most professing non-Christians here have somewhat negative attitudes, and that bothers me a bit. Does anyone have positive suggestions as to how one might find feelings of meaning or fulfillment in a life of which the sole purpose does NOT seem to be scoring points for an afterlife?
PS. While I was still struggling with my de-conversion, I wrote a short bit about my understanding of Christianity which I find quite entertaining. I encourage Christians and non-Christians alike to check it out.
I wonder how many people would be willing to belong to a church or "get saved" if the bible had used the same "soft-speak" as you?
After 20 years like you, and your brain constantly knowing that you're trying to belive something that could not possibly be true, I think it's time to give it up, I mean, why force feed your brain something that in it's natural state of reasoning, emphatically rejects?
It's not natural to force feed people a philosophy, that your brain through reasoning, knows that it's unbelievable.
Why subject oneself to such nonsense, when everyone of us is like each other, almost identically, even all races can interbreed successfully, and we try to seperate ourselves from others with our silly religious beliefs.
Over here is the Jews, over there are the Catholics, over there are the Protestants, over there are the Muslims, etc.
Thanks Ryan, welcome to freedom, let your brain tell you what is true, not some ancient Opium inspired book. Please stick around!
Please click on my name above, but I warn you, it's filled with hatred
and powerful insight. TC, Ben
One thing I find helpful when reading on this site is to immediately dismiss the great Christian scholars that come here to explain the bible to us as having a case of "Can't see the forest for the trees syndrome" They will go on for days discussing this verse and that verse, and who said what and when to whom, as if it was really important what a bunch of Bronze age people thought. The average 6 year old today has more accurate knowledge about our world, the universe, and life here on this planet, than anyone did 2000 years ago.
You write like Mark Twain and Robert Green Ingersoll. I was looking for the point in your "piece" where you would stray from clear thought back to fuzzy headed mysticism, and never found it.
I am 70, and Ben is 52, and there are hard core Atheists on this site older than me, and I am sure we have all experienced the "God Hole" when we realized that all religion was silly nonsensical, magical, illogical crap, I personally equate that feeling of loss of the security blanket of belief in a "magic entity up in the sky who I could talk to and ask favors from" , as the burden we will all carry for the rest of our lives, in exchange for the ability to see life more clearly.
I read what people on this site, write, who I know are a lot smarter than me, and feel reassured by the fact that there must be millions of people now, (Thanks to the Internet), who are free from religious cults.
I don't think I could ever give up rational thought and go back to talking to an imaginary creator. If our creator truly is omniscient, and omnipotent, it already knows what we need, what we think, and what we want!
Check out Ingersoll's Greatest Lectures (Robert Green Ingersoll)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/tocinger.htm#IND..., (Rationalist, Agnostic, Humanist)
I know what you mean about the sense of meaninglessness. Christianity claims to offer meaning to life, and then once you're in, it insists that outside of Christianity there is no meaning. Eventually, the Christian believes that outside Christianity is meaningless existence. I felt that way myself for a time.
However, I no longer view it that way. Here's how I see it now:
Meaning is something we assign to ourselves or something we find within ourselves. While it's a very comforting thought to think there is some big eternal entity that is looking out for us and giving us meaning, if that idea is illusion or myth, then certainly there is no real meaning to be found there. Besides, what is the meaning of worshiping a god? It might feel good, but what's the point really. What's the real point of being alive forever to worship some god while everyone who didn't or wouldn't worship the god is being tortured in horrific agony forever?
I suppose the SS found meaning in serving Nazi Germany, but I would rather be accused of meaninglessness than meanness. Christianity with it's threat of eternal retributive punishment is not real meaning, just mean.
There is no one place to find meaning in life. Some find it in family, in work, in relationships, in creative expression...the list can go on indefinitely. It is not that there is NO meaning to life, it is that there is great variety of meaning. Christianity has condemned all human expression outside of its confining walls to a vague worthlessness. I believe that intense programing is a lie -- for there is much beyond the walls.
Now, if what you think is that mortality limits meaning in some way, let me ask this: Is the life of someone who lives 80 years more valuable than someone who lives 60? Does longevity make a life more meaningful? I assume you'd answer no. If longevity contributes nothing to making a life meaningful, then I'd suggest that even an eternity adds nothing to making our lives meaningful. To have meaning is to use our lives well, regardless of how long or short they may be.
Youch.
Do you mean the video is incredible like amazing, like holy sh*t check this out!!?
All I can see is, if they are not rescued by a dose of common sense and logic, someday those angry and repressed little girls will marry those angry and repressed little boys who will raise angry repressed children. It's a never ending cycle.
Really scary
the hitler/osama one is a close second - what does that remotely have to do with kids praying?
I googled across this site while looking for Easter Images.
I am reminded of Jesus words that People will know we ar his disciples if we love each other.
34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."" - John 13:34-35
I assume that also suggest that people will know that Jesus is real (and we are his disciples) if we actually follow that teaching.
It is funny.
I have many dissapointments with people in general and religious people in particular because we do such a poor job in this issue.
p.s. the form for posting says some HTML can be used, like italic, but if I use the italic tag it tells me no. (FYI)
<... out some of the videos!
It's precisely that kind of appeal to emotion that cements the power of irrational blind faith in believers.
In my mind's eye, I can see similar video's in the muslim world depicting cute little kids with cloth masks and AK-47s and praying to Allah. It's pretty much the same.
I am so glad for this site and others like it. It is very affirming for me to read what others have gone through. Thank goodness for the internet! For years I just tried to put it all in the back of my mind, because I was still somewhat under the "influence," even though I knew christianity was wrong for me. At the time I felt it was still o.k. for others if it really helped them deal with life. It's funny, back then I sort of just resigned myself to the possibility of burning in hell forever, but that still couldn't make me step foot in a church again, I hated church! Especially the fake friendliness and the grossly emotional worshipping. Then about a year ago it occurred to me that the concept of hell was so ridiculous that I stopped believing in it. We're going to have new bodies? Bodies that are indestructible, but will still feel pain? Bodies with nerve endings, like what we have now? I just don't see that happening. Ever since then I've relieved myself of the guilt I was brainwashed into having for "falling away." Now, I'm amazed that I ever believed any of it. My grandmother, who has been a christian for 30+ years, sprinkles me with little sayings that start with, "The lord says" . . . and "the lord can help you" . . ." She tries to get me to believe again, yet she doesn't seem to care about any other aspect of my life. A sweet woman who could have done so much more with herself.
Sorry to have gone on so long, but I've never been able to talk about this with anyone for the last 12 years. This site has done so much for my sanity and peace of mind. I think more and more ex-christians will find this site, just like I did, and we will be able to all speak out about something "they" would rather quash--that ultimately people leave the religion because it isn't real, period.
BTW, I could only watch half of that video with the kids praying. My skin started to crawl.
Thanks for everything, Dave!
And in order to continually believe in that fraud, christians have to self-impose a level of psychosis and suspension of reality. Christians start to get this glazed look on their faces as they age. I've seen this look on several older christian female relatives, like they're not all there mentally. They're slow to respond or laugh at humor, almost like they've lost the ability to be spontaneous. How sad, but it makes me feel good about myself, that I was able to finally find and like my true inner being--without any help from any religion.
Belief in god and adhering to religion is an excellent way to squash your personality. Not for me, thank you.
People were drawn to Jesus because he was fun and had a sense of humor as well.But you are so very right ther are some Chritians that look like death warmed over, but don't let them steal your joy. Hey I am not trying to make excuses for your deconversion or loss of faith but when you are on this side of the dirt you still have a chance. As far as a fraud I know this about God.....He turned berr into furniture at my house. Oh and the Bible is so perfect it was written by 40 men over a period of 1600 years and flows perfectly as if one person wrote it. Check this out the Book of Ezra 7:21 has every letter in the alphabet except for the letter "J". Also the shortest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 117 and the longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119. Oh yeah the exact middle of the Bible is Psalm 118. I just thought that to be neat stuff.
What about evil, then? Does God love it? No, for God did not create it.
Evil does not exist in the same way as good; evil is a "negative" existence, like a void or a vacuum. Evil is the absence of good, the negation of God's infinite Goodness and the goodness of creation.
If creation is a beautiful tapestry woven by the hands of the Almighty, evil is a tear in the fabric, made by the willful disobedience of intelligent creatures.
The Bible means what it means except when it doesn't mean what it means, therefore this doesn't mean what it means, it means whatever John says it means.
Get it, y'all?
Your god is the author of evil.
Proverbs 16:4—The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Rev4:11"...for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
All means all except when it doesn't mean all, I guess...
Sounds interesting! But what exactly is "berr" and why would god turn it into furniture?
Anyway, when I was a christian, I couldn't imagine ever not being one, but that was largely due to my pitiful fear of burning forever. Now that I'm not, I can't imagine ever going back. I've grown and matured so much from who I was back then. I'm finally the person I've always wanted to be. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all; doing unto others what you would have them do unto you; and finding meaning in my own life as inspired by Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning.
Please remember, we've been where you are now. We are not some newbies or vulnerable persons easily seduced by emotional manipulations or threats of eternal torture. We've all had plenty of time to process and expel the brainwashing we underwent. Who in their right minds would ever want to go back to that?
I do enjoy the opportunity to voice what I've held inside for so long--it helps me in my own personal evolution as a enlightened human being.
Enjoy your berr, I may even have one later--I'll see if god can turn it into a Lazyboy. :)
Yes, I know what you mean about those miracles. I've been able to turn guilt into high self-esteem (though not narcissistic). Works wonders for past traumas and struggles.
Congratulations on your sobriety! And I hear you on the furniture. I felt so good when I bought my wicker coffee table, despite it being second-hand. Just makes you feel more complete. :)
Thank you for a great site.
I'm not and never was a christian or a believer, although I have always been interested in the how's and why's behind people's beliefs.
I think supporting people who are losing their religion is a good thing; though some christians come on here not understanding what this site is about, it seems in their so called unconditional love they're not able to unconditionally support people who no longer think the same way.
Although I find some Ex-Christians comments here a bit harsh towards christians, I can see where they are coming from.
I find it interesting that Christians come on this site anonymously questioning the validity of this site, yet it seems perfectly fine to have a 'christianity rocks' site...to support it is fine,to question it seems to be wrong or unneeded and even objectionable or dare I say it, sinful.
Issues I've struggled with regarding religion in general is this:
-god is an all knowing, all seeing and forseeing omnipotent entity.
-he has created us and the earth, and we are created in his image.
How can I sin? How can god be dissapointed in me if he knows all and knows who I am, as he has created me. If he is all forseeing, then surely he would know what I am about to do, before I even know it myself. How can he be dissapointed in my actions?
It also seems he has rather dubious motives. How can he give an innocent grandmother throatcancer, yet grant say someone like Pol-Pot, muderer of millions, the gift to live peacefully till the end of his days?
It seems this all powerful deity, who has the abillity to create a complete world in a matter of days, is quite happy to dish out global disasters (apparently he is punishing us) but has no desire to stop them. When a loved one dies in a tsunami or flood, we hear people say that god in his infinite wisdom has taken them back to his fold and that it was probably his or her time.
We don't question the fact that this deity could have saved all of them, or that he was perhaps even the cause of the disaster in the first place.
But most interesting of all is that as a non believer, I don't get any signs. I don't get voices in my head talking to me, apart from my own voice. I don't speak in tongues, or 'feel' god or jesus in me. I find it remarkable that some Christians do get this; and you would think that since they are already believers, they would need that less if at all?
Surely myself, as someone who in a Christians eyes is a poor misguided soul that should repent for his sins and start believing, should get some sort of sign; a visitation, a feeling, anything, to startle me and make me wake up to smell the christian coffee?
So in my process of understanding I then turn it around. What if I was a deity and I decided to create earth and mankind (and a universe..for a long time we thought we were the center of the universe..it is only in the last few centuries that through science we have started to understand our own arrogance)..what would I create to make people believe?
Why not make it blindly obvious? Why all the conjecture, books written by third parties who claim to speak in my name? Why not have it come directly from the source? And I don't mean a son who looks human, by all accounts acts and is human and martyrs himself for humans.
Why not manifest myself..or put down a sign of some sort that is so far beyond what we can create that we cannot deny it? That is obvious to all..not just the people who believe in me; as there would be no necessity to believe or not to believe. It would be like gravity itself; hard to ignore when you're walking around on this earth. You can decide not to believe in gravity but there is no point as you cannot ignore it; it is so basic that belief about it doesn't even come into play.
So that's where I'm at. I see that people need structure and morality in their lives. There's plenty of that without religion. There was a time when it wasn't there and religion did a good job of teaching people common values. But to me it looks like something that has gone waaaay beyond what it ever needed to do.
I applaud the people who have come to this site and who are examining their beliefs, wether it is to lose it or to keep it.
Just examining it and asking questions means that you're thinking on your own..that is an important thing.
Thanks for reading my rant:)
Joris
I am wondering if you have studied Christian Universalism. Recently I have personally been moving from Christian fundamentalism to Christian Universalism. More peace and hope. Whatever each of us believes or does, God loves us and will never give up on us. I like what Bonnie Raitt said: Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality is for those who have already been there.
I am not anti-spiritual, I just don't happen to believe in Christianity anymore, and find no reason to believe in any religion at this point.
Thanks for asking.
I'll be up front and say that I am a christian. The main reason that I wanted to comment, and probably will continue to comment, is because I really like to think. Many christians do tend to think that ignorance is bliss, but I am not one of them, nor do I believe that the Bible teaches this. I go to a christian college and it really gets on my nerves that they expect me to believe everything they say. I like the fact that this site has so many different sorts of people with so many different sorts of ideas. And specifically to the Webmaster I aplaud you for reading so many books and trying to learn and not just have and ignorant unfounded belief in something just because someone else told you to believe it... an i hope you don't mind me asking many questions... i love to discuss philosophical and theological issues.
Anyway, mainly I just wanted to introduce myself and will be back soon, but i also want to say to all of the self righteous, unloveing christians who post rude comments on this site should re-evaluate thier view on love... love is not conditional.
And to all of the people who don't agree with what I say I would love to hear your thoughs but please don't be rude to me as I will not be rude to you.
thank you,
Danielle
As I read your story, I could fully relate to most of what you've experienced. I, too, grew up in the church, memorized books of the Bible, led others to Christ, taught Bible schools and camps, etc., and promptly left it all behind at 18.
After I hit bottom many years later, I knew I needed a heart relationship with Jesus, not just a head relationship, so I felt I became a Christian for the first time at that point.
However, we went to denomination after denomination, always questioning, but never getting good answers. For the last nine months, we have stayed at home, (not attending church), just focusing on loving the Lord through studying His Word on our own. I am not reading other people's books so much, but relying heavily upon my own study of God's Word.
There are several things that really helped me. First, I realized that the point of reading the Bible is to have a relationship with God, to get to know Him. Second, there is absolutely NO denomination that has it right, either theologically or in one-anothering. So rather than looking at denominational stances, I have come to my own conclusions about what God's Word says because I have studied God's Word for myself. I have also decided not to judge the oodles of hypocrites out there. Third, I have found a couple things to be helpful in my studies. I use the inductive method of studying God's Word for myself. Kay Arthur has written a great inductive Bible study series, where you still learn everything yourself, but once you learn the method, you are obviously intelligent enough to do it on your own. The other type of resource that has truly helped me put it all together is realizing that the Bible is a Jewish Book, written by Jews, for the Jews, about the Jews. When I learned to read it from a Jewish perspective, it took on a whole new light to me. I am not a Jew, but I do deeply enjoy studying the Jewish roots of Christianity. Without them, Christians cannot possibly understand God's Word.
I would encourage you to search the Scriptures for yourself. Apply correct hermeneutics. Look for the roots. Use the inductive method. Read the Bible as a way to get to know God.
The Christianity I now enjoy is a totally different thing than what I learned in church, than what I grew up with, or than what I see in most of those around me.
I pray for God to open your spiritual eyes, which is what you seem to be seeking. Persevere. It will all be worth it in the end!
In your post you said: I knew...I felt...I realized...I have come to my own conclusions...
Then you go on to promote Kay Arthur. Jen, I'm 47, I was around when Kay wrote that junk. I used to listen to her radio programs. Inductive study? What the hell is inductive study anyway Jen? Do you even know? I'll tell you: Inductive study is akin to Inductive Fallacy. And then there's its cousin, Inductive Reasoning. In other words, inductive reasoning is not logical deductive reasoning.
Now, don't you think it's odd that you are one of the only enlightened Christians in the world, or at least one of the few you've been able to locate? Didn't Jesus say, "I will build my church?" It strikes me odd that all those churches are in such error, while you, sitting at home, have got it all figured out! WOW!
Kay, if your religion makes you feel good, then please, enjoy. But in the future, realize that many people have had heart-felt, genuine, religous, relational, devoted, real faith in and with Jesus only later to realize that it was all in their imaginations.
Oh, and there are at least a million people praying for me already. Of course none of them are True Christians™ like you, so maybe your prayers will be fruitful.
However, I suggest you not hold your breath.
I am not a Jew, but I do deeply enjoy studying the Jewish roots of Christianity. Without them, Christians cannot possibly understand God's Word.
The main reason that Jews do not believe in Jesus is because of; Isaiah 45:21-22 I the Lord? and there is no God beside me; a just God and saviour, there in none beside me.
Now Jesus was a Jew, and Jerry Falwell said that anyone that was not a Christian was certainly destined for Hell, this includes all Jews and Muslims and non-christians.
So I know you're going to say thats why Jesus went to Hell.
But what about all the God-inspired Jews that wrote the Bible before Jesus was crucified?
Who are we to believe? That the Jews are right, since they wrote the OT, or the God-Called Jerry Falwell?
Has your heart waxed cold?
This feeling good and feeling the spirit is actual a mind induced orgasmic state that the fundies love. The only high they will not feel “ashamed” of is their “god high” In this case, the brain is given less oxygen. Their body starts the tingling, shivers and gyrating and during the process, they speak a lot of gibberish (in tongues).
Well, golly gee it must be a god, because every time that I’m with my hubby, the exact same thing happens. Woo hoo WM, I think I found an objective god….lol. “The feel good God”
This is why Kay stays at home. She needs the privacy.
P.S. Ben, you're a hoot..lol
I sometimes pick up a set or two of those old-fashioned wax lips at the candy store for my kids.
However, I don't recall any cold wax hearts. I guess that's just too old-fashioned.
I'm cracking up over here really bad, and they're coming to get me>>LMAO!!
This is why Jen stays at home.
Dave, those wax hearts seemed to be a little more common back over 2000 years ago, but it's trying to catch on again in 2006...lol
Love you guys! Ben
Drea
Finding this site was by accident at best, but I have found many of your comments in your "testimony" curious. You seem to have spent a great deal of time looking to religion and man to answer your questions of faith. Your going about this all wrong. Denominations were created so that people could pick and choose what from the Word of God that they wanted to believe. Religion is merely something that man came up with to prove his worthiness to get into heaven without following the guidelines set forth in the Word. Stop wasting time learning the history of Christianity and researching denominational texts to learn what God gave you in his word. God did not invent Christianity or any other religion. We are not called to be "Christians". We are called to be children of God. We are required to accept and confess what Christ did for us in his death, burial, and resurrection. We are required to live by the one law that is left for the heirs of God and that is Love. The Word is not hard to understand, we just have to stop trying to look to other people to tell us what God wants from us. In the end we ourselves will have to stand before God and answer for our lives. He has given us his Son and his Word to guide us. We won't be able to put off our short comings on others and what they taught us. We will be responsible for what we learned on our own, while seeking His face and His will for our lives. I do not know how this could change your life, but I feel compeled to write any way. I am no theologian by any means but I do know to not look for my answers on faith from man.
Thank you for your time,
Chris
I think atheism is nuts. Only God is qualified to be an atheist. Agnosticism is alright up to a point. Some things are undeniable. Overall, secular humanism has built a wonderful moral structure, except it rests in mid air. I realize the bible raises issues but the difference is between trying to figure something out versus not having anything to work with.
Anyway...the point I wanted to make to you is that of all the stuff you raise, the most effective argument presented against Christianity are Christians. I frankly do not have an answer for all the points you raised. I know what the bible says, but then trying to figure out how that is seen in many cases, is a real challenge.
The rational arguments against Christianity and even the Bible are very weak. But the best argument against Christianity are Christians and your points are well taken.
I'm not your mother, so I am not going to try to 'convert' you back. I can't leave Him and have wanted to many times....so that is my explanation of the 'fifth petal'. But instead of trying to refute you line by line, I think us Christians MUST do some soul searching of our own in order to even try to attempt answering your concerns about us.
You, sir, qualify as an atheist since you don’t believe in believe in Zeus, Buddha, or Allah. The only difference between you and the atheists on this site is that we believe in one less god than you do. There are almost 5,000 historical gods to choose from. You’ve picked one. The True One, of course but then again you’ve dismissed 4,999 other gods. You may have a lot of explaining to do…I hear the Zeus can be quite pissy when he’s angry.
I believe this broadsword and mace belong to you...they have "Shannon" etched on the handle.
:-)
All I meant was that you'd have to be omniscient to be atheist. Either that or one very keen at guessing. Agnostic seems more suitable for humans.
My main point was that even though the prosecution is pretty weak, the witness list is pretty ominous.
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong.
Atheism says: "I don't have a belief in gods." Atheism does NOT say: "I know with absolute certainty there are no gods, and I can prove it." Mind you, this pertains to a Universal NON-personal deity. The Biblical Christian god---who is most certainly portrayed as a subjective and personal deity, exists ONLY as a concept, *nothing more.
*If you'd like to refute this, please, feel free to provide objective evidence for the existance of your biblegod.
Agnostics, tend to focus their skepticism on humanity. They typically, believe "humanity", isn't "capable" of legitimizing the term supernatural.
Atheists, tend to focus their skepticism on evidence. They typically, believe "evidence" doesn't exist to support the legitimacy for the "term" supernatural. Thus, the term "supernatural" is absurd, and all that falls in that Platonic category.
Whereas, Agnostics stick to human limitation, and don't make a determination as to the legitimacy of the term supernatural... Atheists, focus on the absurdity of the linguistic expression itself. Unfortunately, those who would want to establish the legitimacy for the term "supernatural" based on self-evidence, get a little bent when asked for "evidence" by Atheists. Self-Evidence is based on "Natural" evidence, if a person is living in this "Natural" realm.
Personally, I agree that humanity has limitations in regards to discretely defining self-evident experiences with "legitimate" words or expressions. Thus, focusing on the inability of humanity to be capable of legitimizing the word "supernatural" itself, based on the human factor alone, would compel me to become an Agnostic.
However, thinking on the matter a little further, if I accepted human limitations when describing metaphysically self-evident experiences, then, I'd have to conclude that the metaphysical term "supernatural" being from a "human origin", is by default "absurd". Thus, I see the Agnostic skepticism of the human factor, as supporting the case for Atheism.
The only way out of such a logical conclusion, would be to assert that the term "supernatural" was borne outside of the "human experience". This being the critical factor, compelling me to sway either towards Agnostic or Atheist, I am going to have to side on the Atheistic side, as I can only "imagine" how a word could be created outside of the human experience.
Now, lets see, where shall I go to pick up an example of a human, who would deliberately create an "absurdity", perhaps, a philosopher and mathematician would be a great place to start.
"In mathematics, an imaginary number (or purely imaginary number) is a complex number whose square is negative or zero. The term was coined by René Descartes in 1637 in his La Géométrie and was meant to be derogatory: obviously, such numbers were thought not to exist."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number
Now, I detest religion, and I don't make an effort to hide such claim. However, I try and show some restraint when it comes to academics, as there are some heroes in education who are fighting the good fight, against the past stupidity that has been laid out in front of the younger generation.
Uh, there are very few though, that have presented their academics with such "blatant" honesty in my experience however. So, as a youngster, I got preaching, and fundy-school, and then when I thought it was safe... I got to go to mathematics class, and be told that imaginary numbers were "real", based on some medieval fundies' satire.
Underlying the major subjects of education, from kindergarten, all the way through the university levels (to include the Ivy League colleges), are fundified concepts woven into the subject matter, and of course based on the fundified philosophers. Even trickier, some of the fundies had legitimate concepts that made sense in real life, like Rene's algebraic coordinate system/Cartesian Plane.
However, how in the flock does a student figure out which pieces are BS, and which are capable of being applied to reality. In a need to vent, let me just say, that those philosophers who felt a need to create a transcendent reality, to "shove" their perfect god in, created a Platonic number system to go along with the thought.
"Transcendental Number - an irrational number that is not algebraic."
Transcendent, kind of like a Platonic Form, in some other reality, got it. Oh, what's an "irrational number"?
"A real number that cannot be expressed as a rational number."
Oh, its real, but not rational, so perhaps, really irrational.
Teaching some of the philosophical concepts in classrooms as Absolute truths, is assinine. Its like taking the word "supernatural" and trying to convince everyone its true, by claiming that its self-evident. I had a hard time in school, trying to "apply" theology, and other academic concepts, even in the mathematics, in my everyday life. Over time, I dropped the absurd "nouns", and the absurd notions, like "the perfect life", "the absolute truth of infinity x 2", etc., etc.
I think educators who can't present the "reasons" behind their subject material concepts, should be horse-whipped, just my personal opinion. It took a lot of energy, to shove the most irrational b&*(*&it in my mind, for the sheer purpose of passing a test. Anyway, felt great to vent, and again, I don't buy the absurdity of the "noun" Supernatural, and thus, it appears I would be labelled, by those who forcefully believe in such matter as an Atheist.
Your story is inspiring, and it's good to know that others have experienced the emotional trauma one has to endure to leave christianity and come to their own senses.
Thank you for having this resource...I will be posting my own anti-testimony soon
I look forward to reading your testimony. (Nice website you have there, btw.)
I was actually conceding a major point to the author....then I felt my pant leg get chewed.
If you are so sure the Christian God is merely a man-made concept, why bother with the passionate debate? I don't understand that. It looks more like Don Quixote than Richard Dawkins.
Thanks for your response. You aren't necessarily defining atheism but you are sidingn with a flavor of it. Wittgenstien is the one who came up with what you presented. But you know enough about supernatural to know that it is either untenable or false...but you understand what I mean when I refer to it. It may not be emperically verifiable to you, but then you get into the problem of trying to define all reality based on what you observe and throw the rest away. However, the statement 'truth is what can be observed' isn't observable, so even the Wittgenstiens had to pull back on the reigns a bit and take a slightly different tack.
Feuerbach was the one who came up with the argument that God (and the supernatural) are merely human projections and nothing more.
The only way to know if God is mere projections of the human imagination is to know more than these projections. If the contents of reality were more than our imagination (there is more to this world than dreamt by your philosophies), then statements about God as 'nothing more than' are really going beyond knowledge and into guessing. You can't know where the wall ends unless you can see beyond it....and since nobody can see beyond it, we are either guessing or holding our positions by faith in a chosen authority that purportedly can see beyond the wall.
The language is understood. It's not that it is absurd. What is absurd is anyone who starts with himself or herself, works their way outward and then makes conclusions about reality they have no way of making.
BTW, I am a Christian and I do not buy into that either.
I can trust Carl Sagan that he's right about the boundaries of time and space or what happened 15 billion years ago. I can trust the Bible in that God created time and space in 6 days, over ages, whatever....but I have to choose an authority that I am convinced can see beyond the wall and that is faith, not empericism or rationalism.
We're all stuck in that delimna whether we are Christian or atheist or agnostic.
There IS no "dilemma" until one starts presupposing that there is something beyond "the wall"....i.e..something beyond this natural universe. No visitor to this site has ever, so far, provided any *objective* evidence that there is.
I, too, like everything that Dave8 writes, but I feel I can simplify his writings in certain instances---he'll correct me if I'm wrong = )
Pertaining to the "supernatural"---you can slice it, dice it, splice it to infinity and back---you either take the belief in biblegod as a "supernatural being" on "faith", or, you "know" it with absolute certainty to be a truth. IF you take the belief on "faith", then you are implying that you in fact do NOT, and CANNOT, "know" it to be a truth, other than a personal and thus, subjective "truth". If this IS the case, then most Christians--by definition---are Agnostic, at best. A church full of Agnostics LMAO!
Conversely, if a Christian claims to "know", with absolute certainty, that Christianity is a truth, then---by definition---they cast out the need for "faith", and thus, according to their own holy book, have bought themselves a one-way ticket to hell...why?... because they have no longer have, or need, "Faith" in God. I'm sure most see the contradiction.
Limited agnosticism is healthy for folks, even Christians. But global agnosticism is untenable for anyone. How could you be sure that you weren't sure about anything? It makes no sense.
However, the big question is with certainty. Can we have it.
I believe that no one can have it in the absolute sense and everything below absolute certainty requires faith in another authority or source, regardless of belief.
You guys, so far, are pretty hostile about this. The only thing I can gather is that you were really disappointed by others. If it were merely intellectual, I don't understand the passion I see here. If it were merely intellectual, then who cares if anyone believes something you know doesn't exist or not?
Maybe someone made you look foolish as a Christian, from some barage of arguments, and you never wanted to feel that way again. I can understand that too. I've been there...but in most cases I've seen, it wasn't so much that Christianity was such a bankrupt line of thinking as much as it was Christians who never bothered thinking much about what they believed and left many out there dangling in the breeze.
Just some thoughts.
People who realize they have been lied to and deceived for a large portion of their lives have absolutely nothing to be upset about—absolutely nothing at all.
In fact, leaving religion after 10, 20 or 30 years should be no more traumatic than taking off a dirty sock.
Silly ex-Christians.
Epist... I am pist—at you.
You may have a rudimentary comprehension of the definition of Christianized religious epistemology, but you really have no clue about authentic down-to-earth human psychology. Come back when you learn how to shave.
Everyone may initially come from one presupposition or another, but people who make fantastic claims have the burden of proof, regardless. Present evidence for your magical, mystery deity, and I'm sure we'll all be willing to take join your tour to Strawberry fields forever.
I don’t find anything in the natural world that would lead me to believe that there is something out there after death. What’s more I am not the least bit disturbed by the thought of my death being the end of me. You seem to ache with a need for something to be out there and you seem disturbed that a few others don’t have the same need as you do.
Through the evolutionary process, the homo sapien sapien got a brain but physically compared to other creatures we are quite puny. We are not great runners, our hearing isn’t all that groovy, our eyesight falls short, and we don’t hold up in extreme temperatures. Ours brains gave us an edge in competing for survival against others. An unfortunate side effect seems to be that we can contemplate own demise.
Atheism is no more nuttier than the belief that the world is only 6,000 years old, we’re made from dust and rib, Noah built a boat that held two of every animal in the world for 150 days, and a 13-year old virgin was molested by a ghost at the behest of a god.
Atheism: "Someone who denies the existence of god."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Actually, I agree with you. My views do in fact differ from being just a "pure" Atheist. An Atheist typically claims that gods don't exist, per their own form of reasoning, and there are many ways to reason away supernatural gods. However, I deny the "existence" of the "entire" supernatural realm. So, in essence, I not only disclaim "gods" like the Atheist, I include under my umbrella of "does not exist"; faeries, imps, demons, spirits, gods, angels, hell, heaven, and everything else that could possibly be imagined, stuffed, and shoved according to someone elses' claims, in an "alternate" supernatural reality. So, again, I suppose you are correct, I am not "just" an Atheist, I'm more like an Atheist, on steroids. I am not a nihilist, and really, I can go full out with my belief system without getting pushed into absurdity, as I don't make claims outside of my understanding. However, if you wanted to attack my position, the best you could do, would be to prove I'm not omniscient, and then, of course, I would just respond that my ignorance of the Natural Universe, doesn't compel me, to start creating mutliple universes and alternate realities, in a feeble attempt to make sense of my "immediate" environment.
Epistem01: "Wittgenstien is the one who came up with what you presented. But you know enough about supernatural to know that it is either untenable or false...but you understand what I mean when I refer to it."
I had a pretty substantial post, that I lost earlier, while the server was being maintenanced. So, instead of giving you the "why" version, let me just iterate that I differ from Wittgenstien in some of his methodologies, but, yes, I can see similarities in some of our same results. Here's a small set of rules that "appear" to be useful to me, when attempting to discuss epistemological foundations.
--Raw information "exists", and is [as] finite and encompassing as the Natural Universe
--Knowledge "exists", when two or more pieces of information are synthesized and stored on a medium that recognizes the synthesized product as a singular informational element. Many people know the word "god", but the informational elements used to "create" this "god", are typically unknown to those who state they know or believe in the "noun" the word represents.
--Synthesized information used to create Knowledge becomes, less tenable, than "raw" information
--Knowledge is [as] finite as the medium on which the information resides
--One attribute of information itself, does not create knowledge
--Information can only be absorbed as efficient as a platform allows, people can only awarely absord "x" number of data elements at any given time, and the elements absorbed are notional most times, kind of like "supernatural", a notional word, built from Naturally Raw information, and synthesized to create what you perceive to be "knowledge"
--All raw information can be used to build knowledge
--Not all synthesized information, provides valid knowledge, representative of the whole from which it was taken
Well, that's a few rules, however, there are more, but, these should suffice to respond further to your post.
Epistem01: "It may not be emperically verifiable to you,..."
Well, actually, I would say it differently. The Supernatural is not only non-empircally verifiable, but the very use of the "word" Supernatural, in my understanding, is totally derived from "raw informational" elements of this Natural Universe. To represent this "word" Supernatural itself, is to assign supernatural properties to the "word" and "definition" itself. Of course, that is absurd, as the word supernatural exists in this natural reality, and so does its definition. There are some religions, that think it blasphemous to suggest they can "know" a supernatural entity, and thus use "G-d" to represent the word "god". The word itself, is considered "supernaturally" representative. Now, as I stare at the word itself, I feel I need to pinch myself, and attempt to figure out, am I in the Natural realm reading the word, or the "supernatural". Since, my environment has never changed, and I have yet to see a wall erected to dileneate between two different realities, I always smile, and go, nope, I am still here, in Nature, nothing changed. So, let me conclude by stating, the word "supernatural" is not only not empirically verifiable by me... I believe, it was empirically created to begin with, based on Natural Raw Informational elements of this Natural Universe.
Epistem01: "...but then you get into the problem of trying to define all reality based on what you observe and throw the rest away."
I do feel that there is more to the Natural reality, than we become aware of all the time. And, yes, if I tried to focus on every little Naturally Raw piece of Information, my body ould "lock up", like a spinning dial on a PC. However, for those special moments when someone suggest that my "entire" life should be focused on "one" word, and I should live my life according to that one "words'" rules and laws, well... I want to get to know who this word represents, and the validity of the words' representation of the object being discussed. Lets see, I don't have to do that much anymore, I just go
straight to the questions that allow me determine the Natural Origin of a supernaturally descriptive word.
Epistem01: "However, the statement 'truth is what can be observed' isn't observable, so even the Wittgenstiens had to pull back on the reigns a bit and take a slightly different tack."
Perhaps, "truth" is what can be synthesized, while still representing the whole of its informational elements. He was 20th century, there has been tremendous research in this area of science.
Epistem01: "Feuerbach was the one who came up with the argument that God (and the supernatural) are merely human projections and nothing more."
Sounds like mentalism to me, we build our reality by projecting our Naturally Raw Information onto our environment. I do believe we project naturally, some more than others during times of stress. Freud also made such assertions, claiming that projection was a Natural defense mechanism, and he tabbed the mechanism "Projection". We do absorb visual information, and yes, we project it as well, but reality to me... was here before I got here, and after I leave, it really won't matter. So, reality is obviously independent of me as a life form. The greatest truth is in my present, go forwards or backwards and uncertainty starts to become a factor, as the "knowledge" base housing my synthesized information from my past slowly dissipates, and my future is determined by present actions, responsive to that synthesized information base and innate core programming (information).
Epistem01: "The only way to know if God is mere projections of the human imagination is to know more than these projections."
Geeeeeesh, okay, here we go. An oldie goldie, and you did mention Sagan, so, well... I don't always see eye to eye so to speak with some of his presentations. In short, "we" are part of Nature, to include our imagination, and even neural projection loop mechanisms. To say, there may be "more" than projections, is to say, there may be more than the "universe" we live within. If I absorb new information, and expand my sphere of reality, the Natural universe didn't expand, I just grew less ignorant.
Epistem01: "The language is understood. It's not that it is absurd. What is absurd is anyone who starts with himself or herself, works their way outward and then makes conclusions about reality they have no way of making."
I disagree that the language is "understood". Many people accept the word "Supernatural" lazily, and live in the "general" per se. I live in the "particular", and want coherent association between the Natural and Supernatural. That connection can not be created, and as you expressed, can be understood as someone trying to move outward from the Natural origin. I think the word is absurd, because its based on a "presupposed" definition, outside of this Natural reality.
Epistem01: "BTW, I am a Christian and I do not buy into that either."
Well, there is something we can agree on at least. I don't buy it for different reasons it appears, but nontheless, going to the edge of reality, and then makeing claims to bridge the Natural with the Supernatural does seem to be impossible, at least to me.
Epistem01: "I can trust Carl Sagan that he's right about the boundaries of time and space or what happened 15 billion years ago. I can trust the Bible in that God created time and space in 6 days, over ages, whatever....but I have to choose an authority that I am convinced can see beyond the wall and that is faith, not empericism or rationalism."
How do you propose to escape your "experiences" in order to reach the "supernatural" peak, of the Informational Tower of Babel. You were biological before you became aware, thus, empiricism has priority in your life. Without empiricism, you would not biologically exist, and thus, you would have no platform on which to discuss these matters. To suggest that you follow "faith", as a priority over Empiricism, shows the out of sequence events that have transpired in your life up to this point. You were born, you have experienced life before you absorbed enough raw information to create a "you", or have an opinion.
--I'm as certain as I can be, that I exist. I'm as certain as I can be, that I live in a Natural reality. I'm as certain as I can be, that if I believe any more than this, that I require "faith".
Epistem01: "We're all stuck in that delimna whether we are Christian or atheist or agnostic."
I don't see a wall Epistem01. The only wall that exists, is between my "knowledge" base, and Naturally objective reality. However, as my knowledge base expands, then my Natural Horizon itself will expand and become part of my "whole" reality in this Natural Universe. I absorb the new, I don't buy a wall analogy where I reach a point, absorb the information of a wall, and then, continue to believe it has a definitive separation parameter. Why isn't the "wall" part of this Natural Universe?
Exactly what do you believe, that you know, because you don't believe you can know what you really believe?
I know that the bible is a collation of oral and written stories about pagan mythology, attempts at moralizing, people predicting the future, stories about a supreme being doing all kinds of absurd stuff.
Do I really need to know how I know this, other than the fact that 1700 years after it was put together at the command of the ruler of a super power, I can see clearly that it is nothing more, and nothing less than bronze age people attempting to explain their existence?
I'm not angry about the fact that you or anybody else believes in the absurdities of the bible, because I can see the Darwin effect taking place. There are too many people in the world, and if a few billion die off as a result of a nuclear exchange, or some other instrument of mass destruction, wrought by true believers of differing theologies, no big deal. Species have come and gone, and the universe just keeps going round and round.
Your puny word play and mine will have very little effect upon the great cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, in, and of the universe, that the creator designed.
I do know a few things for sure that give me pleasure, though, and one of them is not believing in a death cult like Christianity.
Dan (AGNOSTIC?,HUMANIST?,RATIONALIST?, primate).
Thomas Paine
Born: 1/29/1737
Died: 6/8/1809
I'm not sure what you mean by "limited agnosticism", but I'll agree that it's healthy for *everyone* to admit that their knowledge is limited, and that they probably harbor some false beliefs. And yes, that applies to everyone, but especially Christians, as many of them (at least among the ones who visit this site) seem to think otherwise.
Epistem01: "But global agnosticism is untenable for anyone. How could you be sure that you weren't sure about anything? It makes no sense."
You're absolutely right; you are making no sense. I think you are just inventing terms and playing fast and loose with words like agnosticism. Given the confusion invited by that word, and the range of ideas associated with it, I personally choose to avoid it altogether; I think it's quite useless anyway, at least in it's common usage (e.g. being "unsure"), as it's nothing more than admitting that you might be wrong. In my opinion, if you cannot admit the possibility of being wrong, then you suffer a malady akin to delusions.
Epistem01: "However, the big question is with certainty. Can we have it."
For empirical facts, no, it is not possible to attain absolute certainty. However, certainty is attainable in a "practical" sense in many cases. For example, while it's entirely possible that atomic theory is all wrong, I think we can agree that it's exceedingly unlikely to be all wrong, given the extensive empirical evidence supporting it. Hence, for all practical matters, it suffices to treat it as an absolute fact, and not waste time continually testing the hypothesis. The same can be said of quantum electrodynamics, biological evolution, special relativity, etc.
Epistem01: "I believe that no one can have it in the absolute sense and everything below absolute certainty requires faith in another authority or source, regardless of belief."
Why do believers love to use the word "faith" as a pejorative? I really don't get it. No, lacking 100% certainty does not automatically imply faith of any variety. I am not 100% sure that my car will start tomorrow morning; I strongly suspect that it will, but I admit the possibility that it may not. No need for faith there. Same with getting on an airplane. I'm not 100% sure that it will not crash, and I do not simply adopt an attitude of "faith" that it will not. I admit there is a remote possibility that it may crash, and I choose to take the risk. I have no need for faith to fill the gaps left by uncertainty.
Epistem01: "You guys, so far, are pretty hostile about this. The only thing I can gather is that you were really disappointed by others."
Well, you've gathered incorrectly, at least in my case. I reject Christianity for one reason and one reason only; it is not supported by the facts, as far as I've been able to determine. Indeed, it appears to be nothing more than a man-made belief system, just like thousands of other religions. I did not reach this conclusion capriciously, but through diligent research spanning several decades.
Epistem01: "If it were merely intellectual, I don't understand the passion I see here. If it were merely intellectual, then who cares if anyone believes something you know doesn't exist or not?"
Personally, I couldn't care less what you believe. You can have an alter to Osiris in your living room, and it won't phase me one bit. However, it does matter to me how people treat one another. When religious zealots attempt to make everyone bow to their particular deity, or cast aspersions toward those who do not share their beliefs, or credulously propagate half-truths and other misinformation, then I tend to get a little irritated.
Epistem01: "Maybe someone made you look foolish as a Christian, from some barage of arguments, and you never wanted to feel that way again."
Not even close. I can say with a high degree of certainty that many of the apostates here have simply used their minds and discovered that Christianity in an untenable belief system.
Epistem01: "...it wasn't so much that Christianity was such a bankrupt line of thinking as much as it was Christians who never bothered thinking much about what they believed and left many out there dangling in the breeze."
Well, I do agree with you that there are many Christians who do not seriously think about what they believe and why. To me, that is the height of irresponsibility, particularly when those same individuals denigrate others for not sharing their beliefs. We see that type here on a daily basis, and I find it very disturbing.
Jim, great post as usual. Well, it appears a vacation to the hallowed reagion of the Dalai Lama is in my near future, so, everyone keep up the good fight, after I fall off the radar screen for a while. Take care...
It feeds my ego :-)
Dave - You assume you're the only guy on the planet that's been hoaxed, mislead and manipulated by self-motivated people.
Grow up and welcome to the club.
If I were to categorize all the people who've run over me since I was five, I would have to create 750,000 blogs to bleed all over. Carving out Christians as the bad guy is about as insipid as hating atheists because of Stalin.
People are cruel, self-motivated...they see weakness in someone else as opportunity for themselves...etc. What you experienced with Christians can be found in government offices, baseball dugouts, clubs, families and any other place where more than one gathers together.
The wall is an analogy for nature. It is observable. If it is all there ever is, was or will be isn't. Believing that there is something beyond it also isn't. THe idea that the cosmos is all there ever was, is or will be is a statement of faith. The idea that the supernatural is beyond nature is too.
I really can't see how it can be any other way for us. We're limited in knowledge, scope, understanding and experience to be able to answer many questions beyond ourselves without leaning no the authority of someone or something else....which is my definition of faith....resting your conviction on something or someone other than your self.
That is, unless someone invents a small door that once walked through, can catapult us into another universe, charge $1.00 admission and then get most of the population through it. Until then, we have to take someone else's word for it.
Your Reconstructionist worldview is cripplingly flawed.
Grow up and welcome to the club."
I'm not sure where you get your information to assume anything about Dave. I'm also not sure what that rude comment had to do with supporting the validity or truth of Christianity. But personal insults from Christians is something we've all "grown" quite accustomed to. Welcome to the rude Christian crowd.
And hey, why bother starting your own blogs when you can so eaisly post all over other people's?
Well, I don't know if you are referring to the WM Dave or me, but, I will respond as if I'm the object of your attention :-) First, its strange for you to
assume I assume, that's reverse assumption, perhaps this was the projection I was talking about earlier.
Regarding, self-motivated people, I think there those who are cognizant and deliberate in their attempts to manipulate, and then there are those who are so ignorant of their actions and their influence that they have no real concept of the level of their ignorant manipulation. If removal of ignorance, is all I can accomplish in my temporal life, to
remove the "ignorance" excuse, that is so prevantly flashed when people in society conduct acts that are manipulative, etc., then I feel a great sense of
satisfaction - education is a powerful thing. And so, if religious leaders happen to fall in the category of "manipulative" and "hoaxsters", then let the
chips fall where they may, I'm an equal opportunity educator.
I think it an oxymoron to hear "educated faith", do you? Faith requires "unknown" gaps, as
Jim Arvo alluded, I don't particularly like filling in missing gaps with "faith" putty. "Faith" is a conclusion, not a "Question mark", I'd prefer to finish the ride I started as a child of Nature, without someone pulling my neural sparkplugs so their mechanic business thrives.
Epistem01: "Grow up and welcome to the club."
Hehehehehehehe, well, I haven't heard wisdom as such, but perhaps the comment was said with a little esprit. Lets see, just because a club exists, doesn't
mean we should initiate the rest of humanity with such antics and call it - paying dues to be treated honestly. Call it hope, but the circle of
manipulation can be broken. Although, the hard truth is rough at first, it opens up many other possibilities beyond the limited notions of religious
dogma. Leave everyone in manipulated states of awareness, and the dysfunction eats at society like cancer.
Epistem01: "If I were to categorize all the people who've run over me since I was five, I would have to create 750,000 blogs to bleed all over. Carving
out Christians as the bad guy is about as insipid as hating atheists because of Stalin."
Well, if you've been hosed by 750,000 people since you were five, then you need to come here more often, I'm pretty confident many were christians, in this
"christian" dominant nation ;-) In the particular/atomistic approach, I'd suggest you pick a specific topic that seems to thread through all of your
hoaxings and manipulations, and attempt to prevent others from continuing that same circle of abuse. In the general, I'd suggest that you don't need
750,000 blogs, you need just one website, and a bunch of people who have been there and done that, who can come together to validate claims, and share
insights. Education is the key to prevent further manipulation, a person can either share their knowledge, or they can hord it like a piece of loot.
Knowledge was meant to be shared, its how we as humans operate in the sea of information we swim within.
Epistem01: "People are cruel, self-motivated...they see weakness in someone else as opportunity for themselves...etc. What you experienced with Christians
can be found in government offices, baseball dugouts, clubs, families and any other place where more than one gathers together."
True, and transparency seems to be a key ingredient to preventing ignorance overload, and misinformation. People "choose" to have "faith", its not innate. People naturally have "questions", that's normal.
--I'm as certain as I can be, that I exist as part of Nature, we coexist in changing forms. Its natural to question the relationship, its not so natural to "divorce" oneself from the relationship, because they feel they got a bum rap at birth.
Thanks WM, for the support. I like many regulars here, am somewhat desensitized to the short quips, nibbles, and bites we get, its the dangers of spoon feeding, perhaps, I will go fill out one AF Mishap Report, and take a safety CBT :-). Cheers...
...and copy and paste from notepad to the "comments dialogue box" doesn't show line breaks between words that are side by side.
First, while I am thinking of my vacation and packing, let me make a few comments... First, Faith is based on "skepticism of humanity" to "know" or "legitimize" the "truth" of "all" aspects of our reality. It is a common thread between faithful christians and "some" agnostics in my humble opinion - tis' why, many christians who have some understanding of their religious foundations, don't feel threatened by agnostics.
It appears that some christians come to this site, with a preset epistemology, they hope to educate agnostics with. The modus operandi, at times, seems to focus on gaining the confidence of the person who is skeptical of humanity, and provide them with enough "synthesized information", to be portrayed as a "legitimate" authority figure that can be trusted to give them the "truths" of life.
Some agnostics, don't ever buy the authority line, from one who passes off their epistemology with confidence, but, some... can potentially be swayed to believe, that "everyone" must have an "authority" figure to follow, and, well... heck, why not them, the christian epistemologist.
The Atheist crowd is a little tougher... the person of authority doesn't count as "evidence" of the "supernatural", and thus, the christian selling tactic of preaching/teaching from authority becomes absurd without providing Natural Informational Elements, that can be validated. Perhaps, that is the current issue.
Epistem01: "The wall is an analogy for nature."
Okay, so, the wall is part of nature, but, where does nature's bounds end?
Epistem01: "It is observable. If it is all there ever is, was or will be isn't. Believing that there is something beyond it also isn't. THe idea that the cosmos is all there ever was, is or will be is a statement of faith."
Heuristically speaking, why don't we key in on the element of "time", as, it seems to be the underlying foundation for your propsed "idea" of cosmology. "Time" is practically modelled, but, in my humble and hurried opinion, I'd suggest that the laws of Nature, and the Natural Informational Elements are deterministically formed (macrophysics), have action potentials that create "randomness" (microphysics), and that randomness accounts for the change vectors in our Natural Universe.
Sometimes, its possible to break past "change vectors" briefly, and "time" itself can be manipulated as proven through numerous physics experiments. So, when you want to talk about "time", and the "cosmos", I would be compelled to believe that "time" is as "static closed system model", but... the physical parts of the clock... well... they are subject to physical fluctuations/randomness, thus accounts for the "gap" created by applying static, consistent, and rigorous models onto a stochastic reality.
Practically speaking, in our dulled sense of reality, the smallest variables of our stochastic reality, aren't perceived many times.
The phenomenological collection of information is so neurologically overwhelming that humanity can only perceive reality as a stochastic process, hence the perception of "free will".
Although, I believe we all have the ability to "become", we can only become according to the bits of Naturally Raw Informational elements that we have absorbed and synthesize to provide us the "knowledge" for "choices". Hope, therefore shifts from a finite monotonous life, to the inspirational search for new Natural Informational Elements, through "experience". Religion strangles "experience", and thus, kills the perception of "free will".
Epistem01: "I really can't see how it can be any other way for us."
I can, "faith" is a destination, the "finality" of a conclusion one has drawn. I am still experiencing life, and continue to allow my reality to evolve, thus, I don't have "faith" in anything, just the highest level of "certainty" for my existence, well, as much as one can be certain in a changing process, by the time I leave this post, many of my cells will have died and been replenished, and thus, I won't even be the same dude, such is our reality.
Epistem01: "We're limited in knowledge, scope, understanding and experience to be able to answer many questions beyond ourselves without leaning no the authority of someone or something else...."
However, knowledge grows, when people are willing to keep an open mind and accept "new" information when it contradicts ones' beliefs. One who has closed the door for greater knowledge, can not grow.
Epistem01: "which is my definition of faith....resting your conviction on something or someone other than your self."
Again, not to be so subtle... I "trust" myself first and foremost. I have the "highest" certainty possible, for my existence, nothing can be higher without me mentally "suppressing" myself as a subjegate to others in reality, and "experience" persuades me to ignore such foolishness. We have "certainty" in ourselves, and in others, we have "trust". Trust, connects the messenger with the message in a relational sense, and is based on evidenciary support. Faith, connects the messenger with the message, in a relational sense as well, but is based on evangelical support. One is focused on evidence, the other, dogma.
Epistem01: "That is, unless someone invents a small door that once walked through, can catapult us into another universe, charge $1.00 admission and then get most of the population through it. Until then, we have to take someone else's word for it."
Okay, I suppose I'll go read some cave walls to derive that "ultimate" knowledge, and place my "faith" in that source, as... cavemen, had as much knowledge of the supernatural, as modern day preachers, logically speaking.
"Happy B-Day:
Thomas Paine
Born: 1/29/1737
Died: 6/8/1809"
posted: 6/08/2006 10:53 AM EST .
Communication from Tom:
Gee Dave! That was nice! although somewhat belated. I read all of your posts, and really like this site because it is one of the few ways I can be in touch with real people down there in the good OLE U S of A.
In between choir practices up here in heaven, when we are not listening to sermons from the "Big Guy" blogging is one of the things I really like to do. I was put in charge of publishing up here because of my earthly vocations. I also read all email and handle the inevitable requests for donations from the 700 club and the like.
I like it a lot up here because I have a lot of old friends around like Ben F and George W. and Sam C, (AKA Mark Twain). Sam holds a pretty prestigious position here because of his lifetime achievement award for making fun of what they call Religion down there.
Me and OLE Ben hang out a lot, and we sneak behind a cloud now and then with a couple of comely lasses and teach democracy to them, if you know what I mean, and the good part is, there are a lot more women than men, due to the fact that most preachers down there are men, along with those people who pretend to be holy but aren't really, and they have a hard time getting past OLE ST. Pete,
The only beverage of choice up here is wine, and smoking is not allowed, so we are at a loss for genuinely satisfying pastimes sometimes.
Any way Dave I want to thank you for remembering me, and I will get this off to my friend Dano, via "www.billygraham.jerryfalwel, Mail," because Dano has a lot of "COMMON SENSE," and he is always faithful about forwarding my stuff to EX Christian.
I have to communicate this way because I am on a stipend of 3 pounds Sterling a month,and I can't afford AOL.
Keep up the good work Dave, and say hi! to the others who have been diligent at, not keeping the faith! Ha, ha, ha,.
Your friend always,
Tom
"BTW, I am a Christian and I do not buy into that either".
"I can trust Carl Sagan that he's right about the boundaries of time and space or what happened 15 billion years ago. I can trust the Bible in that God created time and space in 6 days, over ages, whatever....but I have to choose an authority that I am convinced can see beyond the wall and that is faith, not empericism or rationalism"
"We're all stuck in that delimna whether we are Christian or atheist or agnostic"
"Grow up and welcome to the club".posted: 6/07/2006 9:56 AM EST
"If I were to categorize all the people who've run over me since I was five, I would have to create 750,000 blogs to bleed all over. Carving out Christians as the bad guy is about as insipid as hating atheists because of Stalin""
"People are cruel, self-motivated...they see weakness in someone else as opportunity for themselves...etc. What you experienced with Christians can be found in government offices, baseball dugouts, clubs, families and any other place where more than one gathers together". posted: 6/08/2006 8:29 PM EST
Dano observes:
epistemology teacher (student)
The several statements of yours ^above^ constitute an oxymoron when read in decending order from the first.
Of course, neither you or me could ever know for sure!
Dano (Agnosticathiestjustliketherestof us)
If you use MS Word the cut & paste works great. I ran into the same problem myself.
And you're in the AF...I'm in the ANG. Love those CBTs, baby!
Sorry, no comments for the episto person. I'm trying to avoid getting into debates for awhile, but I'm still lurking.
Your Friend, D8
Yep, the amazing episto is still going like the energizer bunny, perhaps in time, even episto will be able to accept reality as a picture, with morphing hues, instead of a reducible jigsaw puzzle, with nice clean walls to look around (for da' boogie man) :-)
The ANG, that's awesome, my next CBTs will encompass all that goes along with an extended vacation, isn't that special. Seems, they are finally focusing their energy with the right folks, in the right places, I'm no six sigma expert, but, can we say Process Improvement and Quality Control? Sometimes (insert sarcasm), I attribute inefficiencies to politics, perhaps, some of the politics have dissipated (take your political pick of choices why) enough to allow progress to be made.
Well, take care, and keep up the resistence, its great to know, that I have another Think Pal on the inside with me. ;-)
I also think that because I believe in Jesus CHrist as Lord, every position I take, even if it is in agreement with skeptical positions on certain things, I have to be either wrong or need to be straightened out....because I am the Christian.
That's alright. We're all pretty much hopeless in that area.
But I think it's the pink elephant in the living room that hasn't been pointed out yet.
My main point is that none of us know much of anything...especially as much as we espouse (and when we do, it is to further us, not the truth). When it comes to God or no God(s), then we're deaf, blind and mute. Our understanding of such things is so finite, that when we start to talk about either God's attributes, or the boundaries of the cosmos, we're more like a side show than truth gatherers.
In short, unless Someone or something can inform us about this stuff, where we are, we are stuck with only mental orgasms and jousting for sport. And those things are fine, so long as you realize you're not really bettering anything....just finding a way to while away the hours to cancer gets us ;-)
Honestly, what in the hell is meant by saying Christian apologists "OR" skeptics?
Newsflash: Christian apologists ARE SKEPTICS! They're skeptical of every other world religion but their own. What Christianity is, is it's a conviction. Convictions are the END of knowledge. Christians claim a monopoly on the one and only "Truth". Talk about a f%cking "orgasm"?
Get over yourself. Either provide objective evidence that you have the "One Truth"---or make like Jesus, and become "invisible".
Such a risque remark for such a religious person. I agree though, Nature does breath through us, with Raw Information, and of course, we process, and emanante that synthesized informational product bac into the environment, in many varying communications ways.
Epistem01: "I also think that because I believe in Jesus CHrist as Lord, every position I take, even if it is in agreement with skeptical positions on certain things, I have to be either wrong or need to be straightened out....because I am the Christian."
There are limits to knowledge, the present is the most "certain", those who want to reach back a few thousand years, well, they get to play the statistics and probablity game. Look into the future, and attempt forecast analysis, and of course you run into the same probablity game. The knowledge of the past, is built from synthesized Raw Informational Elements. Unless you can deconstruct what someone of the past offers as "evidence", and show the supporting elements in their most Raw and Certain forms, then, obviously one doesn't really know the "truth" of the "matter".
The best that can be gleaned from the past, is the knowledge, that "finite" Raw Informational Elements can be manipulated (in some mysterious way, perhaps) to produce specific results. If a person can not deconstruct and build the elements that created that "specific result", they have to infer (probability) based on levels of "certainty" as to those informational elements.
Epistem01: "That's alright. We're all pretty much hopeless in that area."
Some, more so than others. Some, don't want to live in the present, they have their entire life centered around death, and the future afterlife, again, would that be probability, yes, would the past Jesus, be based on probability, yes, does it appear that all of religion is based on pure speculative probability, yes.
And, just so I finish the thought, does science allow people to live in the "present", yes, do they test their beliefs in the present, yes, are there the most certain results found in the present, yes. So, it appears that one either chooses to enter into the game of probability, extreme probability for the more ignorant in my opinion, or live in the more concrete and certain.
It appears we each make that choice based on our synthesized informational elements. I really don't think Nature cares which choice is made, its more responsive to the informational results and the responsive readings it gets. Funny thing though, Nature/Objective Reality (Objective, in the sense, that Existence is Certain, perhaps, though, you find probability in that though), seems to be experimenting with Artificial Intelligence itself, uh, that AI, would be "you" and "me", there studly.
Nature seems to change our positions in life, through fluctuation, random fluctuation, until there is a pattern derived, and we are no where close. So, although I accept some randomness in my life beyond my control (determinism), I get to experience, and that's all Nature seems to want from me, and "experience" seems to be limitless for a person with a temporal life. It would appear that we receive feeback, when we do things that do not conform with the pattern of experience.
Epistem01: "But I think it's the pink elephant in the living room that hasn't been pointed out yet.'
Yeah? I think your pink elephant, only exists, because you know the color pink, and what an elephant is, and of course, that is based on Raw Natural Information you have received. Me thinks Nature is trying to tell you, to experience the putting together of pieces of information, but once you run the loop, I don't know, "you're entire life", it becomes apparent you are stalling Nature because you won't get off of the pot.
Epistem01: "My main point is that none of us know much of anything...especially as much as we espouse (and when we do, it is to further us, not the truth)."
Again, past, present and future, seem to be different modes of thought, that define how much we can "know" with certain levels of certainty, of course, the peak of certainty being in the "right now". And, of course that knowledge furthers "us", that would include "you" and "me". Isn't it plainly obvious, that some of the "control", is determined by your very actions in the environment, yes, it would appear so. So, is it in my best interest, to attempt to gain the greatest range of freedom for my experience, while not inhibiting your experience, yes. I suppose one could suggest that some people are compelled to "remove" those who threaten their ability to experience, and I would not argue the point, it seems only Natural, and is not a "moral" debate with me.
Epistem01: "When it comes to God or no God(s), then we're deaf, blind and mute."
So, we say, there is an elephant pen, in our living room, but we can't see the boundaries of the fence, nor can we tell how many elephants we have herded. I don't mind watching TV looking through the invisible elephants, and I really don't mind, the guy/gal sitting next to me mesmerized at the empty space in the middle of the floor in front of the TV, as long as they don't get up and stand in front of my TV.
Epistem01: "Our understanding of such things is so finite,"
Arguably so, but as limited beings, our reality becomes "infinite" in perspective. Can we know different? For every piece of information you absorb, is it an original piece or is it a used piece, or... can you know any different?
Epistem01: "...that when we start to talk about either God's attributes, or the boundaries of the cosmos, we're more like a side show than truth gatherers."
Now, now, don't step into nihilism, I didn't remark on your post earlier in regards to your global agnosticism and you making comments that were self-refuting. You tease certainty, while holding onto imaginary probability, why don't you go read some Descartes. Truth, is knowledge, now, how one defines "meaningful" knowledge, well, depends on the synthesized information they have processed in their life.
I'd suggest that we "experience" reality, moving our lenses, back and forth from the general to the particular, from the "macro" to the "micro", and we innately check for consistencies between the two... perhaps, the relationship becomes a standard where we are the interface.
To "Me", truth, is finding those consistencies between the general and particular that make sense, in either practical matters, or theoretical. I'd suggest that the theoretical is a little more abstract because of randomness, and limitations of testability. Our inferences of reality, which we consider "truth", are typically in the "general", and based on common "perceived" patterns, all that we perceive is not always "reflective", of what "is".
Those who seek to cement the macro with the micro, continuously to create a tighter bond with reality, by finding a more stable "anchor" point, seem to be the truth seekers. Those who have come to conclusions, without having that cohesion, and who have given up the experience of processing information, are no longer seeking truth... they appear to suggest, they "hold" the Truth.
Epistem01: "In short, unless Someone or something can inform us about this stuff, where we are, we are stuck with only mental orgasms and jousting for sport. And those things are fine, so long as you realize you're not really bettering anything....just finding a way to while away the hours to cancer gets us ;-)"
Nihilism, doesn't really become useful in a conversation where someone is trying to convey a message with purpose. Can we "know" something, yes, I Exist, I am pretty certain on the matter, because I Exist, based on "experience", and the most "recent" past information, which means there is even a limit on the certainty of my own existence.
I am not sure we can theoretically live in the present consciously, but, that is another thread. Are we jousting, for orgasmic pleasure, I suppose, but, isn't that part of Nature's expectations, so, while we joust we are playing the game I really enjoy, and yet, its a game that seems to undo the binding that holds many religious people captive.
So, no cancer for me, information is breathing freely through me, and I am not neurologically holding my "breath", however, I have met some mentally suffocating people, who need some serious information, to process, instead of reading the words in a book, over and over, as if they are going to receive some new experience, in an "inerrant" and "perfectly static" writing.
"I also think that because I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord, every position I take, even if it is in agreement with skeptical positions on certain things, I have to be either wrong or need to be straightened out....because I am the Christian"
"My main point is that none of us know much of anything...especially as much as we espouse (and when we do, it is to further us, not the truth). When it comes to God or no God(s), then we're deaf, blind and mute. Our understanding of such things is so finite, that when we start to talk about either God's attributes, or the boundaries of the cosmos, we're more like a side show than truth gatherers"
posted: 6/09/2006 11:13 AM EST
Well, Duhh!!!!!!!
SHIT! Epistem01
We have been evolving for 4 billion years, and up till about 50,000 years ago the most sophisticated imaginative thing we had come up with was a pointed stick!
In the last 20 or 30 thousand years we invented language, and the whole "GOD" package!
Give the OLE bearded guy a break, will ya? Everything in due time!
As soon as he gets us off in the right direction with interplanetary travel, he may show us some more about creating universes.
It's my opinion though that we haven't been "Out of the Cave" (Sorry about that Plato), long enough to grab on to the most subtle complexities of it yet.
Dan (Trusting that the "Big Guy," knows what it is doing!)
"Such a risque remark for such a religious person. I agree though, Nature does breath through us, with Raw Information, and of course, we process, and emanante that synthesized informational product bac into the environment, in many varying communications ways."
See?
Ha! I am a little off color from my 'brothers' and 'sisters'. I yam's what I yam's, yet He still loves me. In fact, probably the only reason I pulled off the religious mask and took a risk. That bothers alot of my 'brothers' and 'sisters' more than it probably bothers anyone else.
Anyway, I appreciated your post. I would think your style is more intellectual traffic cop than intellectual orgasm, but that's splitting hairs.
Since we're all into the dance, I'll start two topics. I appreciate responses more if they are efficient and brief...it's a time issue :-)
Speaking of which, let's start with the universe. Did it begin? What caused it?
Also, how does science explain how our knowledge is high fidelity, rather than inscrutable?
Cancer doesn't ask permission. But I'm glad you are cancer free. As for those suffocating...you are right. ALot of the ones I met are Christians....but many are 'atheists' too. Stubborness doesn't seem to discriminate too much, in my experience.
Also, how does science explain how our knowledge is high fidelity, rather than inscrutable?"
I have a better idea. Instead of this silly dance, on my anti-testimony no less, why don't you just spell out your agenda and let that be the discussion. Whenever Christians start asking questions, it's nearly always to make some point or promote some private agenda.
Please, spare us. Come out with your point.
have fun, heres an idea of what its like http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/hell.shtml enjoy!
p.s. have you actually taken the time to research all you doubt? jesus loves you and is a forgiving god of second chances, but once you die, times up!
still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!
-JESUS FREAK!
still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!
-JESUS FREAK!
On your site:
Luke 16:23 - "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
Select link; http://biblia.com/jesusbible/job6c2.htm
<BR... down that web page. Which bible do you use, and why are there descrepancies between bibles on that passage's use of the term Hades? Oh, "You" have the "one" True Bible, I understand, of course, that makes you one of the "True Christians", unlike all of those "other" christians who use "other" bibles that are different than your inerrant one.
Uh, temptation leads one to the greek underworld, you'd better watch out. And, I didn't say I could work through anything, so, quit putting words in my mouth, retard.
I sense the naiveness throughout your posts that indicate that you are very young, so I will submit this poem just for you!
If
IF you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too: If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies, Or being hated don't give way to hating, And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master; If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim, If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same: If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings, And never breathe a word about your loss: If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings -- nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much: If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling
Ah, yeah. Okay...
You have stated an opinion that you believe answers the question, "How did the universe begin?"
But, you have not actually answered the question.
It is generally agreed among the many competing branches of Christianity that god is incomprehensible and far above mankind. Our feeble minds' abilities to grasp and comprehend HIM are often compared to an ant trying to comprehend a man.
Please correct me if I've overstated anything in the preceding statements.
So, if I understand your point, you are saying that the explanation by science for the beginning of the universe just doesn't make good sense to you, a reasonably thinking person. You are saying that, far from offering an explanation, science has simply engendered more questions than it has answered.
You know what? I somewhat agree with you. Science has not presented an adequate explanation for the beginning of the universe. At least, not to my mind it hasn't. But then again, I don't understand quite a few things that scientists have come up with. In fact, I don't even fully comprehend how my car works, or what makes the Internet work. If I were to list all the things I don't fully understand, or don't even understand at all, the list, I fear, would be excessively long.
My apologies for the personal digression.
Anyway, since you and I can't answer the question as to how the universe began, you've offered your incomprehensible god as the final answer.
Your answer sparks some questions in my mind:
How did this god create the universe? What method did he use? When, exactly, did the process begin? What materials were used. How were the materials materialized? Can we replicate any of this in a laboratory?
My assumption is that the answer for these, and any other salient questions, would be: "HIS ways are unknowable."
So, in other words, your answer to the question of how the universe began — "God did it" — is no more satisfying or explanatory than the answers from science that you've castigated.
To say "god did it" explains nothing. The beginning of the universe remains inscrutable — beyond our comprehension.
Retreating behind "god did it" does not explain anything about the beginning of the universe, it only sets the topic aside on a shelf — something we can never understand, so why bother trying.
Do you really think such an approach to knowledge is wise? From my scant reading of history, when Christianity condemned the pursuit of science, viewing it as an attack on faith, many centuries of ignorant darkness, disease, and painful death resulted. Do you crave a return to those earlier, more faith-filled times?
I don't.
still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!
-JESUS FREAK!
I didn't realize I was an Atheist, until someone said "god", and I asked "where"?
I really hope this is a joke, no one can be this rabid, I was crying I was laughing so hard when I read this post, its the best one yet. I really like the ending too, its like, a catechism that reinforces someone who really needs self-indoctrination, because of their own intellectual insecurities.
How many bubbles are in cheese? Yeeeehaah, now that's some useful information in a religious conversation, perhaps you want to also ask who made the Universe, and how also.
Lets see, obviously in order to provide you with a "meaningful" answer to your question, I must use "your" frame of reference, and suppress my own heuristic "common sense". So, let me help you seek that answer you so much yearn to know, using your Supernatural realm alone.
Uh, that realm alone, presents an infinite number of equally correct & incorrect answers. So, no matter what answer is given to you, you could suggest its "right" or "wrong", and there is no way to falsify the claims, because you can't disprove a persons' imagination.
Uh, yeah, an answer being "both", right and wrong. Well, it happens, one person says their supernatural answer is the correct one, and another person disagrees, by providing their own supernatural answer. Well, that makes each of your statements, "both", equally right and wrong.
Yes, indeedy, if one were asking a question honestly, to reduce the number of possible answer variables, then they can not have a frame of reference that includes the infinite number of supernatural possibilities.
Why would someone with a supernatural belief, ask "anyone" a question, that "any" answer given them, can be said to be legitimately correct or incorrect at the same exact time.
Question: How did the Universe begin & what caused it?
Answer: According to my supernatural crystal ball, which is invisible by the way, puff the magic dragon burped, and we are the snot flying across his backyard in the cosmos.
Lets try it out, I believe that my answer is correct, and that "god" is a figment of everyones' imagination, and that Puff daddy, is the true creator. Now, does any christian buy my answer? No? Well, that means we have a supernatural answer, that is both "right", according to me, and "wrong" according to you, see how that works.
You try, whatever you say, I'll say your a liar. And, we're both right and wrong again, wanna try again? Oh, you got the idea, like, you're not really getting anywhere, because you are chasing your tail. Yeah, I figured that out a long time ago, that's why I'm obviously an Atheist, I had to rest from all of the running in circles.
Hey, Freak, you need to take a chill pill. Those who have supernatural beliefs, should be like their questions - sterile.
Oh, just to close the loop, I believe "all" supernatural questions are inscrutable. High-fidelity, well, comparing the Supernatural to the Natural, I'd suggest that the odds of answering a question are "infinitely" increased if only searching the Natural realm, how's that for high-fidelity. Can one get better odds, than "infinitely" more lucid and scoped fidelity. Thought not.
Wow, I haven't laughed so hard in a while, thanks Freak, you're a hoot. You should invite Epistem01 over for your sweet sixteen B-Day, and trade big fish stories, LMAO.
Bwahahahahahah, I can't help it, holy cow. You need something to strengthen you, from all of that jumping around in the pews, perhaps a five minute abs workout, and a side order of "god". Hahahahahahaha. Lets try again, I "believe" in the supernatural (for grins), and I say. You're god isn't potty trained! And, you don't agree with me. Wow, look, we are "both" correct with opposing answers to the same question. Holy manure, look at that anomaly, talk about inscrutable, you can't beat that obscurity.
Hey, while we are playing the supernatural idiot game, I have a question too. Have you quit thinking about your god when you masturbate? Just a simple yes, or no will suffice. Here, let me provide your answers.
A) Yes, I have quit thinking of my god when I masturbate.
B) No, I still think of my god when I masturbate.
Got any more questions, I mean, this is fun, I typically only get one answer that's correct, with your system, the possibilites are as infinite as the imagination. I can picture your god now; "uh, uh, uh, (in comes music), "I'm dreaming of a white christmas" (end music), uh, uh, uh, (in comes TV newscast from cleveland), "I'm a True Christian reporting the weather, It's a blizzard, look at all that "snow", wow, and it tastes great, how heavenly (newscast off), uh, uh, uh.
Hey, Jesus Freak, I had a dream that you wet the bed also, and although I don't know who you are personally, it must be true, I mean, why else would I be dreaming of you peeing all over yourself while you sleep, I think its your gods' way of telling me you need help.
Jesus Freak, who is still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things by putting my fist up my Jesus Christ puppet's bunghole, and spreading the word/cheeks.
You said: "My assumption is that the answer for these, and any other salient questions, would be: 'HIS ways are unknowable.'" ummmm duh?"
The point here is that saying an inscrutable God made the universe gives no information about how the universe was created. Saying "God did it" is the same as saying, "I don't know." Either way, there is no information available about how it was done. The "God did it" response, however, acts as if the answer is already found. Those who believe "God did it" are convinced that people will NEVER, EVER be able to figure out how the universe began, so they don't bother trying to figure it out anymore. The "I don't know" crowd is still willing to search for a real explanation.
In the "God did it" answer still begs all kinds of questions. For instance, what exactly is god? What is he made of? Where did it come from. Can it be verified to exist? Are there others like it?
All we have to confirm the existence of your god, is a book written by men who say they had some experience or other. That's it.
A whole bunch of men signed their names to the Book of Mormon stating that the words within that book are true, and were given to Joseph Smith by an angel of God.
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is from God? If not, why not? A bunch of men say the stories are true! Just like the Bible!
Kid, your zeal reminds me of myself when I was your age. Your ideas will change as you grow older.
Tautology - "Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology
Yeah, the logical form may be structured appropriately, but that doesn't mean the simpler underlying statements are actually true or false. Hence, a tautology provides no insight or proof for anything, its informationally sterile, a dead end for anyone seeking useable knowledge.
Lets take my example where you masturbate either thinking or not thinking of a god.
Simple Underlying Statements:
-There is a "god".
-You masturbate.
Although, my logic is structured and makes sense, the underlying statements could be either true or false. However, I dressed up the tautology, and presented it, as if it logically had real useable meaning. A tautology could be true, but not necessarily, and not one I would want to stand on, if my life depended upon it.
Its okay, I find that there are theoretics in many areas of endeavor that are internally coherent, and rigorously tested for consistency, but when externally applied become pure tautology. However, there are many systems, that seem to be coherent internally, and useful in external "application" as well, albeit, we all must accept levels of uncertainty at some "level", in order to live our lives productively. We can't live in the future, and such coherent systems, aren't for the future, they are for the "now", and "now" doesn't need to incorporate the uncertainty of the future. I digress.
Lets see, here's a common religious tautology:
Have apostates proven the non-existence of god using "Absolute" and "Ceratin" Scientific facts?
Answers:
A) Yes, apostates have proven the non-existence of god using "Absolute" and "Certain" Scientific facts.
B) No, apostates have proven the non-existence of god using "Absolute" and "Certain" Scientific facts.
Simple Underlying Statements:
-God exists.
-Therefore, Apostates exist.
-Absolute & Certain Scientific facts are required to disprove god.
Now, obviously, the very first simple statement, could be either true or false, but the religious present their tautology as if it were "true". However, that first statement could be either true or false, based on how one defines "god". But, then of course there are the apostates, so, its obvious that there is the push for a "pro" god stance, and the final statement requiring "Certain" and "Absolute" Scientific fact as the only test to disprove the defined "god".
Now, as the WM stated. Tautologies are all over the place, they come in the form of opinions, jestures, etc., etc., but are of little use when trying to discern useable information. To declare something as true, doesn't necessarily make it true or false, what is used to support the claim as being true becomes more interesting when searching for truth.
So, if you have some information to support the claim for your Jesus or a God, by your own personal definition, then pony up, or...
be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, or you'll be perceived as a parrot with nothing of substance to offer anyone looking for useful information.
Should read, "B)...have [not] proven the non-existence...
Man, I intuitively know when something just ain't right, but, putting it in logical form tries my patience. Its hard being god, but at least my followers understand I am not all that logical anyway :-0)
I am a teenaged Roman Catholic (I imagine you are gasping right now :) ) attending a Catholic school. (You're writhing on the floor, aren't you?) Hopefully you weren't expecting a fundie rant, because I'd hate to disappoint you.
And to get straight to the point, I respect your viewpoint. My religion teacher, if she ever met you, would probably go completely psychotic (especially as she is eighty, and a former nun). I would just like to say that although I'm still a teenager, I do question the church, beliefs of the church, and religion in general. If I were the outgoing type I would have driven my teacher twice as bonkers. I'm still working out what I believe and don't, including doctrines like the Trinity, without which you are apparently not a Catholic (huh, maybe I'm not then. Hm). I don't plan on ceasing my own search for truth, and wish you luck with your own searching!
Anna
P.S.
What on earth is "the fifth petal of TULIP"?
still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!
-JESUS FREAK!
Some day the Day of Grace will be forever gone . . . Heaven and Hell are VERY REAL. It's not a joke. Jesus is your ticket to Heaven....do you really want to be in torment forever in Hell....IT'S REAL...I TELL YOU...IT'S REAL. ~Carolyn
That's okay though. It illustrates the point that ignorance is frequently the refuge of the religious.
Still refusing to use common grammatical skill, formulate cogent arguments, listen, or study, for you are ignorant and lost in your faith.
Incidentally, this kind of statement carries no weight here. Really it sounds more like self-affirmation – “Look at me! I’m a good Christian!”
If you intend on hanging around, for your own sake and for the sake of those who must sift through your posts, please start using what you learned in school about the language. Whether you’re applying for a job, debating skeptics, or writing a letter, you’re more likely to get a positive response if you take the time to present yourself well.
still refusing to be silent, back down, shut up, sit down, for i can do all things through christ who strengthens me!
-JESUS FREAK!
p.s. honestly what is this and english class? its summer and i'm fifteen, i do every summer what every teen does. relax my mind and forget about that sort of junk. seriously... you people make me laugh. haha... hehe... hoho.. punctuation is for the birds.
In just a few sentences you've proclaimed to have the ultimate truth, attempted to goad and personally insult those who disagree with you, become angry and offended over constructive criticism , and defended mental laziness as if it were a virtue. Good job.
Feel free to come back when you've gained a little life experience. In the meantime, I agree with your mother—you don't need to be on this site anymore.
Maybe the bedwetter got behind washing his sheets...lol
I was born, or somehow came to be, a desperate people-pleaser. My father was a standard, by-the-book narcissist. Pleasing him was impossible, yet as a child, I was not able to shake off the programming which drove me to keep trying. About age 18, I escaped my father's control (at least geographically), and set off on my own struggle to find a place where I felt like I belonged. I had had an emotional experience with faith at a young age, gotten baptized, taught Sunday School, led the youth group--all the usual stuff--but I never felt like God was involved in any of it. While the Church seemed for all the world to hold out hope for a sense of belonging, it simply isn’t there. I never felt like I was a valid member.
I tried even harder by going to Bible College. In a never-ending effort to gain credentials, I graduated at the top of my class, struggling the whole way to prove myself to my peers. It never happened. The great narcissist parent was only replaced by the greater Narcissist, the Church.
Now, any believer will flippantly say that it was ME who was to blame, that my heart was obviously in the wrong place, that I was being selfish, so of course God couldn't bless me. But the only thing I came to realize was that, if God exists, he had predestined me to fail in the effort to find a place in his church.
At age 30, in what turned out to be the worst decision of my life, I proceeded to try one more time. I applied and enrolled in a well known evangelical seminary. I was living under the deep delusion that seminary was a place where you can think, reflect, figure things out. I was in for the shock of my life. Graduating from that place is solely about one's ability to crank out enormous amounts of work for 4 years, and nothing about your ability to think. It is the biggest cookie cutter Christian factory ever devised by man. In my 3rd year, I grew sick and tired of it, and threw the whole thing overboard. It was like ripping my arms off, and draining the blood out of my veins. I had trouble in my marriage, and the things the leaders of that school did to me are absolutely unconscionable by anyone's standards--except theirs.
As I look back, I truly wish several things.
One, I wish I had not alienated my Christian friends. Whether this wish could have come true is doubtful. You have to lie to them to stay on their good side.
Two, I wish I had maintained the lie for one more year and graduated. I still have dreams at night in which I am a student, and finals are coming up, and I'm not ready. Again, this wish may not be practical because in the end you have to be honest with yourself, even if there is a long term cost. You can hope that the reward outweighs the cost.
Three, I wish I had sought psychological counseling to help me see what was really going on. I could have caught a train on a different track, and not been slammed so hard against the windshield when the forward motion stopped. At the time however, that seemed impossible. The Christian death sentence--rejection by the church--seems so incredibly final.
Four, I wish I had never gotten re-married and had children until I settled some of these issues. Unfortunately for my future family, I still bore the bloody wounds of the battle for approval.
As for theology, the house is shattered, bricks strewn all around. Once in a while, I pick one up, chip off a little of the old mortar and examine it on its several sides. But the house will never be lived in again.
My need for approval makes all the antinomies, paradoxes, contradictions of the Bible seem trivial. I do think one can find some subjective meaning in the literature of the Bible, if you approach it as literature, not insisting that it be scientifically accurate in every detail. For example, if one studies the synoptic issue as a literary development of real people living in real social circumstances, he can appreciate the human beauty there. That doesn't mean it leads us to God any more than Shakespeare or Tennyson or Longfellow. But these literary masterpieces can give us escape, imagination, expression, and healing.
Thanks for listening.
I just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for this page. I am currently going through what could probably be best described as removing the blinders, or coming to the realization that I believed a false religion for nearly 33 years. Coming to this conclusion has been truly painful for me--it means I had to give up my belief in eternal life and salvation, in my family going to heaven, in the meaning of Christmas. I don't know how I really honestly believed these things when I read the Bible objectively and apply logic. But I truly did believe them. I don't know whether to be sad that I lost so much time to a lie or to be happy now that I know and understand the truth.
Your web site had nothing to do with my de-conversion, but I just wanted to let you know that I understand why you made the site, and thank you for it.
DMM
This forum is not just for "self-help" and other "selfish" notions, it is here to encourage OTHERS who are leaving the shitstem of Christianity. Think of it like Alcoholics Anonymous. We're not being selfish, we're working through real, actual, mental and emotional damage done by the church.
Anonymous Christian #8,843,485.5, everyone is in it for themselves. If Christianity did not offer a carrot and a stick no one would follow the religion. It's all about going to heaven and avoiding hell. I can't think of too many self-interest motivators bigger than that. Eternal torment vs. pleasure forever.
As far as your comment about the church doing good things throughout history, you really need to take a church history course. Christianity caused the Dark Ages.
I apologize, as I unfortunately stumbled upon your wonderful website after a sleepless night of aimless web surfing.
What you are doing here deserves a hearty "kudos!", and were I more awake I'd probably be able to say something a little more intelligent. lol. I applaud you sir, I really do.
I respect you for being able to deal with all of the nonsensical arguments you're getting. I'd think it would get a bit old eventually, but you seem to just slog on through it. :)
Have a great day!
~ Aranea
Very intelligent and fine sounding arguments from both sides. Great brains and great arguments.
But what is the final conclusion? (sorry i did not have time to read the entire posts)
Is it... No God so No Christianity
or .. God may be there but No Christianity?
or .. Christianity may be there but we only need Good deeds .. hence no need of Christianity?
or those who call themselves Chiristians should get their acts right?
can some one summerise? Thank you.. keep up your good work!!!
And yes the crusades were horrible and all of the Dark Ages. However, do you honestly believe that the people who participated in murdering copious amounts of people were truly Christians? They may have claimed to be but they got the entire point of the life style wrong.
It is an easy to follow religion. If you want to believe in God you can. If not you don’t have to. (Non-believing saints are allowed in the religion) Some say it is actually not a religion, so you can be religious and not necessarily believing. No two Hindus believe in same gods. (They have about 330 million gods as per some of their mythology) If you want to follow a ritual to worship god, you can. If you think it is too stupid, you can invent your own ritual. If you want to be scientific about what you do, you can explain it with science. If you think, blind belief is enough you can just believe. You can agree to disagree everything and no one feels bad or argues with you (within the religion) as long as you just say you are a Hindu. This is an organized religion at the same time there is so much it is not organized about also. All you might need is a blessing from some “Swamy” from India. Don’t worry; there are plenty of “Sways” who can bless you at economical and competitive rates. You still want to worship Christ, no problem, add a picture of him along with all the cow, lion, fish, pig and monkey gods. There is always plenty of room. In fact, when you die you also becomes a god!!!
See, while there are such easy ones to follow, why are you breaking your head with Christianity and its million churches and its beliefs. Do you wanna give it a try?
As you know each of them have different sets of faiths
which is true?
More than 10% of the responses on this thread alone were posted by those who chose the "Anonymous" designation. Having a unique identifier helps facilitate communication.
However, since your language seems to indicate you're of the Evangelical persuasion, most likely you're not interested in communication; you just want to dictate to us reprobates. Save your keystrokes.
"And you can't trust in Christ unless you follow Him. And if you follow Him, you must decide to "take up your cross daily" which means to deny yourself daily. So in other words, if one claims to be Christian but does not care to try and act how selflessly Christ did, they are not a true Christian."
And this is supposed to impress someone here? We've all heard this tripe repeated again and again by the deluded. Some of us have given this same speech when we were still lost in the faith.
But, I seriously doubt you really walk the walk. I suspect that, like most Evangelicals, you cherry pick the verses you like (or have been told are important) and discard those you don't, and have a multitude of reasons/justifications as to why the verses you don't follow don't apply to you.
"However, do you honestly believe that the people who participated in murdering copious amounts of people were truly Christians?"
I believe that every generation of Christians believes their faith to be a greater expression of the Truth™ than the last. Had you been alive during any of the Crusades, chances are extremely good you would have sanctioned the actions or taken part in them yourself.
I was right. Evangelical. We will not get anywhere with this one, ladies and gents.
"All the denomenations started because humans added and subtracted from the Bible to make it say what they wanted."
And the version you use is the correct one, right? Which version? How do you know it's the right translation? Let me guess, you prayed and the Holy Spirit revealed the Truth™ of your scripture to you. Or perhaps your church peers and pastor revealed it to you, with additional help from the Holy Spirit?
I rather suspect you really don't know much (if anything) about the Bible beyond what you've been told by those in your faith community. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet you haven't read it cover to cover. Most Evangelicals who post here don't know half of what the Bible says, and I have yet to talk to an Evangelical who knows anything about the Bible's history or textual criticism.
So, does that mean that no Christians were involved in creating the Atomic bomb? Does that mean that no Christians killed Germans and Japanese during WWII? Does that mean that Christians never kill, even in war?
The crusades were considered "holy war." The religious leaders blessed the troops, and praised them for their faith in going forth to war.
Many of those crusaders were "true Christians™," convinced they were serving their savior. Just like you.
Ah, do you have any idea how the New Testament became part of the Bible? A bunch of men got together, argued over the various writings they had available, and decided on which of the anonymously authored books to include.
The final decision was far from unanimous.
BTW, the bunch of men who decided the final grouping were Roman Catholics. Did you know your Bible is a Roman Catholic construct?
You really need to learn some history. All your Christian doctrine is descended from Roman Catholic and Protestant thought. All of it.
And now for your claims on the origins of the compilations of our New Testament Scripture. We cannot turn to Acts, to any other New Testament book, or to early church records for an answer to this question. Neither the apostles nor the early church leaders left written records explaining how books were chosen or which ones belonged to the canon. So far as we know, the apostles did not "canonize" their books to make them authoritative. Today a written list of "canonized" books is a necessity. In the first couple of generations of the church, the need for a written list was not pressing since there was a strong oral teaching and apostolic tradition within the churches. The apostles' spoken words and established traditions were considered authoritative in the early church, and by them Christians were taught and knew which books were inspired.
We do not know why written records about the forming of the canon were not made. Perhaps one reason is that the early Christians may have decided, as just mentioned, to rely on verbal transmission of the list of books belonging in the New Testament. Thus they may not have seen the need to put in writing what everyone knew. The apostles may also have thought that it was not important for later generations to know every detail of the process by which the Word was put in writing. They may have thought that later generations would constantly be distracted from the message by turning their attention to the process. They may have also expected the Lord to return soon, eliminating any need for a written record. Furthermore, the apostles may have been too busy living and preaching the gospel and carrying out the Great Commission to make such lists.
So how was the canon formed? The answer is simple. The Christians and the church simply acknowledged the apostles' authority and accepted their writings and the writings of those closely associated with them (such as Mark and Luke) as part of the Holy Scripture. The church did not have to put together a canon by reviewing and examining prospective books and choosing those that qualified to be part of it. How would the church know which books the apostles and their associates wrote? During the opening period of church history, the apostles themselves, or those who received the books, could be asked. Oral tradition would pass the answers on to the following generations.
The next step would be to make a list of these books. Since bookmaking was not developed to where all the New Testament writings could be bound together, one would expect the canon list to develop long before many would have possessed a New Testament canon.
The third step would be for the church and individuals to gather the writings together. Would this be difficult? No, these books were treasured and preserved.
A source of the books in the early history of the church could have been the apostles themselves. One can safely assume that they kept copies of their manuscripts. The writers of the Gospels no doubt had copyists reproducing their manuscripts from the very start so they could be sent to the churches, and the copyists would have had to keep either the original or a copy to do this. One may speculate that the writer of a gospel or any other New Testament book would hardly had put such effort into a manuscript without seeing that it would be distributed. It seems unlikely that Paul would write such a major work as Romans without keeping a copy. There was too much chance that it might be lost in transit to Rome¾or even misplaced by the church in Rome¾for him not to keep a copy. Other authors may also have kept copies of their letters. But above all, the Holy Spirit saw to the overseeing of the distribution and preservation of the books He inspired.
Another source of a canonizing list would had been those receiving the books. They would knew right off that it was an important work since it came from an apostle or his close associate. They surely knew some of the above mentioned views that show these writings quickly were given an important position: (1) that Paul's letters were read in church gatherings on the same level as Old Testament Scriptures (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27), (2) that Peter was aware of Paul's letters to the churches and classed his letters with the Scriptures (II Peter 3:15), (3) that John presupposed his Book of Revelation would be read as other Scriptures (Rev. 1:3), (4) that John's warning about adding to or taking away from the Book of Revelation showed great importance would be placed on it (22:19), and (5) that Paul's critics recognized his letters were "weighty and powerful" (II Cor. 10:10).
In summary, making a canon of New Testament books was no real problem for the early Christians since the church as a whole generally acknowledged the same writings; those questioned were few. When the some books were questioned, it was mainly in later times by individuals or in isolated areas of the church. Those receiving the books¾and possibly the writers themselves¾would have preserved the originals or copies. Copies must have existed from the very start and were available to the church. Those who wrote or more likely those who received the books must have copied them and passed them around the churches.
Certainly what happened concerning the list of canonical books and their preservation was tied to Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit was active in bringing the books together. As mentioned earlier, the church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:20?21). Christ is the corner stone, and He promised the apostles that "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" (John 14:26; cf. Eph. 2:20 RSV); thus the apostles built upon Him to form the foundational truths to guide the church.
Let us mention here an interesting development concerning paper and bookmaking that may also have affected the development of the canon. At least some of the first New Testament writings may have existed in a roll or scroll form if Paul "books" and parchments mentioned in II Timothy (4:13) were New Testament. But we are not at all sure these were New Testament writings. These parchment may had been Old Testament scrolls Paul wanted to use in his defense. As Alands has pointed out, "All the literature of the period was written on scrolls (including Jewish literature . . .); yet apparently from the very beginning Christians did not use scrolls format for their writing, but rather the codex." (The codex is a "leaf" formed booklet.) They note that only four of the early known papyri were scrolls, and these four were "either opisthographs or written on used material." Roberts and Skeats suggest the papyrus codex was probably used by Christians before 100 A.D. The reason for this change to codies is unclear. It may have been for economic reasons (both sides could be written on; their use of abbreviations show the scribe wanted to shortened the text), convenience in paging back and forth in the writings, or to break from the Jewish use of scrolls, etc.
Roberts notes that of the 172 biblical manuscripts or their fragment written before A.D. 400, only 14 are in scroll form. He believes that Christians adapted the codex (leaf) form at Antioch before A.D. 100. Before the fourth century, only a few New Testament books could be put together in one codex. During the fourth century paper and bookmaking technology developed to the point where all the New Testament books could be bound together in one book, and the first "one book" New Testament likely came into existence then. This development may have been a factor in Athanasius' making his list
The first URL is part one. The second URL is part two.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html#
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html
An excerpt from the above URL's --
Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science.
End excerpt --
Who knows, maybe 46 percent of all Ph.D.'s are crazy huh ?
Maybe some of you Ph.D.'s would want to chime in. Tell us your name, background and personal interaction with some of the people mentioned in these URL's.
The first URL is part one. The second URL is part two.
I read your links, and wasn't very impressed, a lot of information, much biasness, and nothing tangible regarding, proof of a "god".
"An excerpt from the above URL's --
Sigma Xi, the scientific honorary society, ran a large poll a few years ago which showed that, on any given Sunday, around 46 percent of all Ph.D. scientists are in church; for the general population the figure is 47 percent. So, whatever influences people in their beliefs about God, it doesn't appear to have much to do with having a Ph.D. in science."
For a scientific honorary society to make such a comment implies the gross ignorance of the U.S's scientific community. I resent the remark, as I work in a field of science. How large was the pool of people surveyed, what was the demographic and geographic distribution, what was the null set, what retard would provide a statistical product with "on any given sunday" as a valid conclusion. "Specifically", what does on "any" given sunday imply, a "few" sundays, on "any" sunday, which means "all" sundays, or on "some" random sundays, with strick accuracy?
"Who knows, maybe 46 percent of all Ph.D.'s are crazy huh?"
You make the statement, that science doesn't have much to say in regard to having a belief in a god concept, but then, you contradict yourself, by attempting to use 46 percent of PhD's as some valid argument, based on authority, which is a logical fallacy. It appears no one has to discuss anything with you, you discredit yourself quite nicely, and the information you present is boringly inaccurate and presents nothing new in regard to a "god" concept. For every PhD you suggest goes to "church", you are no closer to "defining" a "god".
Lets use your asinine argument. Every child goes to school by law, and of course, according to your logic, that makes all children educated, right? If you believe numbers validate anything, think again there retard, numbers are ambiguous many times, because they have to be applied to an ideological set of objects, and we all know that objects and forms, are not universally absolute, we can generally speak in terms of numbers by definition, but application is an entirely different matter. Just because I say the work Whirple, doesn't mean a whirple exists in the fucking Universe, but, if I get enough people to consider a whirple to exist, and make a solid logical argument for a whirple, then of course, a whirple can by definition only be said to exist, that doesn't make the word whirple meaningful to anyone who has a need to draw relationships together, of things that "exist" in this natural reality.
I have an idea, why don't you dig up "one" PhD, who states emphatically that they can "prove" god exists. If you find one, please, by all means, produce their name, and works, I will shred their argument. Its amazing how little twerps use other peoples' names in vain, to bolster their hopeless arguments. I suppose it would be different if they could "quote" the PhD's specifically on "god", instead of trying to take works done, and piece together what wasn't said by them to build an argument.
Are you the same retard Anonymous who posted the PhD bullshit? Hey, here's another question for you, pipsqueek, define a "valid" claim. One that can be proven? Define "prove"? Can you "prove" anything in "absolute" terms? If not, well, then... shut your drooling pie hole. What a maroon.
Thus, nothing 100% absolute, some are in scroll form others aren't, but the "time frame" isn't absolute is it.
"He believes that Christians adapted the codex (leaf) form at Antioch before A.D. 100. Before the fourth century, only a few New Testament books could be put together in one codex."
He "believes", well, I believe the fucking easter bunny is kicking darth vader's ass on the far side of mars at this very second, and we have equally valid claims.
"During the fourth century paper and bookmaking technology developed to the point where all the New Testament books could be bound together in one book, and the first "one book" New Testament likely came into existence then. This development may have been a factor in Athanasius' making his list."
Wow, there seems to be a lot of "valid" absolute statements there, um, could, likely, and may. Lets see, the easter bunny, "may" be kicking darth vaders' ass on the far side of mars, but that "could" "likely" instigate an inter-solar war if that knowledge were "validated". Gee, now how useful is that knowledge? As useful as the bullshit that was presented by some fruitcake on religious texts.
Hey bud, don't bust any blood vessels telling us about how you could beat up any Ph.D. with one of your whirples. Relax, breath deep.
The people mentioned in the article obviously have some pedigree. I mean when was the last time you solved some major equation or won the Nobel Prize?
About the poll, give me your name. l can submit your remark about gross ignorance to the society, and see what they have to say. We could see if they would even bother to respond or not.
And about how they went about conducting the poll with regards to specifics, and your flaming them before even knowing what went on specifically ...
The article spoke for itself. I have no need to defend it. But if you want to go on record stating your name, what degree or degrees you hold and from where, and then tell us what you think of Charlie Townes, or Arthur Schawlow or John Polkinghorn or Allan Sandage or Erwin Schrodinger, have at it.
Maybe the scientific community would be interested to see your comments on paper or on the net. Then again, it's possible that no one even knows who you are.
Save the colorful blankety blank words. They bring nothing useful. Or, is it the rule here that he who uses the most expletives wins?! If so, I'll save my breath for an actual discussion.
This is truly sad. Relgion is complete emotion — thought means little.
To all Anonymous Christian Nazis, I want you all to notice something. If you do a Google search for ex-Christian websites, you'll come up with a few. Then if you do a Google search for Christian websites, count how many you come up with. Then, of those Christian websites, check how many allow comments to be made by dissenting voices. Hell, check how many allow any comments at all!
Then, ask yourself why.
"To all Anonymous Christian Nazis, I want you all to notice something. If you do a Google search for ex-Christian websites, you'll come up with a few. Then if you do a Google search for Christian websites, count how many you come up with. Then, of those Christian websites, check how many allow comments to be made by dissenting voices. Hell, check how many allow any comments at all!"
"Then, ask yourself why"
Dan guesses what the answer is.
There must be a verse in the bible that says something to the effect of: Be tireless in your teaching and spreading the propaganda that I am somehow mysteriously an outright invention of God, am God, am the son of God, am the holy spirit of God, am the son of one of my own virgin female creations, I was created to be sacrificed to myself, to atone for the fact that my creations were defective, in order to appease myself, so that I wont get angry at my creations, whom I truly love, and toss then into a fiery pit to suffer as much as possible, forever.
There must be another verse that says something to the effect that: No matter how ridiculous, illogical, stupid, and irrational, anything in this book seems, all of you who want to call yourselves Christians, and go to a wonderful place when you leave this life, must suspend all rational thought processes, turn your brains off to anything except the particular doctrine being promulgated by your particular sect.
Stick you fingers in your ears whenever anyone suggests to you that everything taught by your particular sect is not absolutely and positively the truth, and the very words of God, and repeat over and over. "I know that everything in the bible is true, because the bible tells me so"
Dan (Ex religionist, and non believer of any thing that cant be proven by the scientific method)
Nothing new here. Merely choosing a scientific vocation does not preclude a personal exploration of spirituality or metaphysics. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that many in the scientific community would seek answers to these kinds of questions. Faced with the wonders of the universe they, like the rest of us, must eventually decide what to make of it all.
That said, there are no conclusions that can be drawn from the quoted statistics beyond what I said above. Furthermore, despite your later protestations statistics are never conclusive. The results are simply not reliable enough. Statistics are good for following trends, not much more.
As for Dr. Schaefer's lecture to which you linked us, I saw no real problems with it until the final section. For most of the lecture, he seemed to dwell on the implications of the universe having a beginning, rather than being infinite and static. That is, he seemed to be leading toward an argument for God as the prima mobile (prime mover) for the universe.
However, in the final section he draws sweeping conclusions about the nature of his chosen prime mover. While he did present material in the body of his lecture that might seem to support points #1 and #2, the remaining conclusions are nothing more than Evangelical talking-points. Dr. Schaefer, despite his pedigree, is horribly biased regarding these issues and is unreasonable in drawing those conclusions from the material he presented.
By the way, a PhD does not a wise man make. Just look at "Dr." Kent Hovind.
JEFF SAID - Faced with the wonders of the universe they, like the rest of us, must eventually decide what to make of it all.
ANONYMOUS - We certainly have something in common
My protestation, as you would call it, was that Statistical Deception was flaming without knowing specifics.
The conclusions that can be drawn, are what that was noted in the article. That 46% of Ph.D. scientists attend church on any given Sunday. For those that live and breath all things science, this may give one reason to ponder.
JEFF SAID - That is, he seemed to be leading toward an argument for God as the prima mobile (prime mover) for the universe.
ANONYMOUS - Dr. Schaefer obviously believes that it is something that people should consider.
JEFF SAID - the remaining conclusions are nothing more than Evangelical talking-points.
ANONYMOUS - It appears that for at least the most part, the conclusions were something Dr. Schaefer got from Dr. Hugh Ross.
I am sure that a deeper explanation regarding these conclusions, would have been better.
?JEFF SAID - By the way, a PhD does not a wise man make.
ANONYMOUS - I agree. Christians have been saying this for years. But I don't think you were speaking specifically about the individuals I listed in the previous post. If so, let me know your thoughts.
Thanks for the civil discussion.
don't you like posts that expose your narcissistic tendancies - that's why you keep deleting them. You couldn't find fame as a "believer" (as much as you tried) so you decided to do something else. Now you're loved and admired but you are still the same person craving attention. Dave face it, christianity didn't work out the way you wanted it to "no lunches with the Pope". Doesn't that say something to you and your followers?
Oh, I missed this thread for a few days. Lets see, the moron who posted this, is obviously illiterate.
Statistical Deception: "How large was the pool of people surveyed, what was the demographic and geographic distribution, what was the null set, what retard would provide a statistical product with "on any given sunday" as a valid conclusion. "Specifically", what does on "any" given sunday imply, a "few" sundays, on "any" sunday, which means "all" sundays, or on "some" random sundays, with strick accuracy?"
You see, its clearly apparent when some schmo comes on this site, and takes information, they have no clue about, and posts it to support their claim. When asked a question about their claim, they state, by non-reply, that they are clueless of the actual information, test results, and experimentation methodologies. But, the Malaka would of course continue to parrot information to support their claim, without knowing the validity of the information obtained because it fits their need.
Here, you want a scientists' name, and a quote, I'll pick one from that website.
"Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God."
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html#
Okay, Einstein didn't believe in a "god", definitely "not" a "personal god", he was forcefully verbal about his thoughts and beliefs. The "superior reasoning"? Show me where Einstein states, in "quote", that he states the Universe is the product of "superior reasoning", and if you can get that far, then explain why he didn't accept "god" as that "superior resoning" instrument.
Is my name well known? Yes, to those of the community I work within. But, of course, only an idiot stands on their name to enter into a discussion about validation of information. A degree, a title, a position, is meaningless when someone makes a claim, their "words", and ability to "validate" their claims makes the statement for itself.
So, if you want to enter into a discussion on scientists and what "they" believe, because you can't support your own belief, then that is "your" issue, not anyone elses'.
If you actually read something, and make claims with some validation, without cutting and pasting, then maybe some of us will be willing to listen, until then, you have totally failed to present anything requested in the survey, meaning, you are clueless about the survey and methodology, and that you have no problem parroting information without researching. The hallmark, of someone in desperation, who needs to make a case, without the tools to do such, a sad state of affairs, for the mentally desperate. I'd say it was a good try, but... it really wasn't.
Regarding Einstein and his beliefs about God -- The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in 'Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.' This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.'
http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html
Like I have said elsewhere before - though last I heard, Hawking believes that small has its limits, well, the jury is certainly still out on this one. It is yet to be determined how far things go beyond neutrinos, quarks, string theory -- whatever. Do things get infinitely small? No one knows. On the opposite end, how big do things get? Is the universe, or parts of the universe infinite, as Professor Lisa Randall says they might be?
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1556888/posts
And IF things go on forever, and knowledge there of also, then one could certainly say that in comparison with all that there is to be known, we with our finite amount of knowledge, know next to nothing. In other words, compared with the infinite, our knowledge is infinitely small -- even with regard to the smartest of the smart. Further - when comparing the most genius against the infinite, and when comparing a bump on a log against the infinite, well, they look pretty much the same - that is, when compared against the infinite. In fact, If things do go on forever, and the knowledge of is infinite - one could say, that we with our finite knowledge, are all infinitely ignorant in comparison.
So save the sandbox language of - moron this and moron that. No man holds all the secrets to the universe in the palm of his hand. We are all mortal. Even Einstein could not withstand death from overtaking him. And upon reading Jeff the Ubergeeks words below, one realizes that we are all in this together.
Jeff the Ubergeek said - "Faced with the wonders of the universe they, like the rest of us, must eventually decide what to make of it all"
My above post wouldn't show the whole URL on the Einstein article.
Here it is without the http www stuff
adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html
To all Anonymous Christian Nazis, I want you all to notice something. If you do a Google search for ex-Christian websites, you'll come up with a few. Then if you do a Google search for Christian websites, count how many you come up with. Then, of those Christian websites, check how many allow comments to be made by dissenting voices. Hell, check how many allow any comments at all!
Then, ask yourself why.
7/18/2006 6:10 AM
The Christian sites are very boring.
It is far more enjoyable to argue with you guys. Admit it; without Christians to argue with this site would wilt and die in a week.
Think about it. Then, ask yourself why.
Wayne
Statistical Deception: "Okay, Einstein didn't believe in a "god", definitely "not" a "personal god", he was forcefully verbal about his thoughts and beliefs. The "superior reasoning"? Show me where Einstein states, in "quote", that he states the Universe is the product of "superior reasoning", and if you can get that far, then explain why he didn't accept "god" as that "superior resoning" instrument."
You accurately claim that Einstein claimed to believe something akin to Spinoza's god. But... Spinoza's God, is known in a single word... the mechanism of "Nature", in short, his God was "Nature", and the facets of Nature, which were attributes. A Natural God, is not a SuperNatural God. For anyone, to state that they are the same thing, is sadly mistaken.
Einstein, didn't search for SuperNatural mechanisms of the universe, he searched for Natural causes based on Natural research. Thus, his dissent from the personal god theory, no personal SuperNatural god, that is out of humanity's reach. As a matter of fact, Albert spent the last thirty years of his life, looking for a Natural universal construct for the Natural Universe, it was his passion to the point of alienating himself from many of his colleagues.
His displacement from the SuperNatural and personal god, is a heavy statement against today's modern christianity, who both hold high a Transcendent (Platonic) SuperNatural deity, whom the Natural follower can engage in a personal relationship with - a contradiction of logical terms.
Now, all these PhD's you state in some quirky manner, that attend some church, do they believe in Spinoza's God, or... some other god. Hence, my point of the survey. What questions were asked, how were the questions weighted, how many negative keys were used to prevent skewing, etc., etc. Would "Einsteins'" Natural "god" count as one who believes in "god"? Not in my book. Espcially, when addressing the topic to christians, who have no concept of "god" most times. In christian company, I'd have to explicitly state that Einstein believed in a Natural, impersonal, non-anthropomorphic, element of the universe, which he used to define "his" noun - "god".
Regarding Alberts' views against Atheism. If religion is considered to be the belief in the supernatural, then, Albert was himself an Atheist. If religion, is expanded to incorporate all beliefs from Natural to the Supernatural, then, okay, however, the word "religion" becomes extremely useless when discussing a scientist and religion.
The site you provided suggested that there "MAY", without any evidence, show that Albert had connections with a christian science group. That is a contradiction in terms, "all" christians by definition accept the supernatural, not something Albert would have been drawn into, based on his very beliefs.
Albert Einstein: "What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
If the quote isn't sufficient, I am sure I can provide more "non" christian (mysticism), quotes. And yes, SuperNatural "gods", equates to Mysticism.
On Hawking, I have differences of opinion, but, that is not of this thread is it. Does Hawking go to church? Does he eat of the body and drink of the blood of sacrament, to remember a mystical ritual performed a few thousand years ago? No, the last time I read of Hawking, he was an Atheist.
The difference between Hawking and Einstein on religion, is that Hawking took a stand on those who continue to "impose" their mystical beliefs onto scientists, whereas Einstein avoided the subject as fervently as possible, he was "not" a public person, and in my opinion, skirted the issue of religion directly by re-defining or ascribing to a "god" concept (which was "not" the common god in vernacular in christian dominant America) and being tagged an Atheist, which during his time, was akin to being anti-American. You have researchers trying to dig into personal letters to find out what his true beliefs on religion were... the man didn't come out and suggest he was a "christian", the silence, makes a resounding and conclusive statement.
Trying to "use" another person, to support ones' beliefs, is ridiculous, its the information and validation of that information that is important, and I am not going to beat the dead horse, of "no response to the survey" criteria. Its about the data, not the degree.
Anony: "No man holds all the secrets to the universe in the palm of his hand."
Yet, there are those who know more than others, and that of course, is what separates many. I do not post my research openly, and I do play a lot with words, yet, I agree, there is much I don't know. Isn't it a paradox to suggest one doesn't know something, its as if they know something, yet they really don't. Hmmmm, quit enigmatic. Dragging this discussion beyond the parameters of statistics, and PhD's attending church, is more than I care to engage in, its apparent you are capable of reading, although the two scientist brought to the forefront of the discussion thus far, were far from SuperNaturalists.
If we can know of nothing beyond, our limited precepts of awareness, then... "god", is as finite as our limited minds, per your comment. Doesn't that mean all of those PhD's sitting in a pew, are worshipping their limited "knowledge"? Thus, are we really all equals? No. Some obviously don't get it, yet... they have no problem attempting to impose their sheer ignorance onto others, and quite forcibly per historical records.
Not the same either, as levels of awareness differ, and thus, as levels or spheres of awareness increase, a "god" concept becomes "less" mysterious in a Natural sense. Einstein was much closer to "his" concept of "god", than "any" christian could ever be according to their transcendent model of a personal god.
An Agnostic typically claims, that people can't really know god, and some go as far as to suggest that humanity can "never" know god, placing a time dimension to their argument. Its an argument against humanity's ability to know "more" than they know currently - hence, the time element.
The Agnostic of course, has to apply with discreteness, their terms according to the "specific" definition of "god". There are many Agnostics towards SuperNatural deities, however, those same Agnostics may not be Agnostic towards a Natural God concept, i.e., Spinoza's God, etc.
An Agnostic of the SuperNatural, may well be a Pantheist, etc. I do find it obscure many times, to see Agnostic terms used without clarification, as it could be used to attack ones' own mental ability to "know" of something. There "is", much that can be known, and there is Much known, that is not posted on the Internet, for obvious reasons.
The bottom line though, for many, is, as agreed, that many have to live together. However, when people use statistics which they have "no" foundation for, based on personal experience to make claims, they are in fact, attempting to "influence" others with information that is not personally validated. That is statistical deception.
And, although I don't like it, we are all imposed upon, by external influences. However, no one has a right to "forcefully" impose undue and unsolicited influence, even if they "believe" they have the knoweldge of a "god", per the biblical writings of primitive people who were much more ignorant of this Universe than those who live today. Religions evolve along with science, they just change their names, and redefine their "god", its really amazing, the "god" of the bible, is "not" the god of many churches today, just ask a Mormon, they have a living prophet who talks to god on a daily basis.
" ... I want to know His thoughts, ... "
His thoughts
Straight from the horses mouth.
You're welcome for the civil discussion but make no mistake I disagree with nearly everything you've said on this thread.
A person can appeal to authority by name-dropping and association and still not prove a thing. Everyone in the world has an opinion. Everyone has beliefs. An honorific, such as a degree or title, does seem to imply worthiness of thought or action. However, all it really tells us is that the person is educated or an expert in a particular - and probably limited - area of knowledge.
Einstein and other scientists are being held up as examples as if to prove that since some believe (or may have believed), there must be something to this God thing. It's a mistake to think that way.
Many Christians latch on to things like this because they believe it validates their faith. They know the strength of scientific knowledge and want it to agree with their holy text instead of contradicting it. The stubborn belief in inerrancy fuels this desire.
The number of believers in scientific professions has certainly fluctuated, but the trend has been toward an overall decrease during the past several decades. Statements such as "an increasing number of scientists believe in Intelligent Design and a personal creator" are misleading. Scientists who believe in God have always been there. The popular ID movement has merely exposed this heretofore little known group to the public at large.
In short, it is useless to point to Einstein or any other scientific figure as proof for the validity of your faith. Ask yourself why you need to do this in the first place.
By the way, it is just as easy to choose "Other" as it is to choose "Anonymous." It costs nothing and really helps people like me to sort through and address specific posts to the right people. Besides, the "Anonymous" tag is just plain annoying.
It is far more enjoyable to argue with you guys. Admit it; without Christians to argue with this site would wilt and die in a week.
Think about it. Then, ask yourself why."
Wayne, you're projecting. You admit that Christian sites are boring for you because there's nobody there to argue with. It's you who's looking for a fight.
I'll admit that I enjoy that to some degree, but I don't go out and look for it. If all I wanted was to start something I could go to any Christian forum and start throwing stones. It might be fun for awhile (until the inevitable ban), but what would be the point? No offense, but it gets boring arguing with Christians because the vast majority simply repeat the same things over and over, and don't seem to be able to argue their way out of a paper bag.
As the WM has said time and again, this site is for the support of ex-Christians, not a debate site in spite of what may happen. There would still be plenty of discussion without all the Christian interlopers.
i think your problem is Christianity was the churches you attended. Maybe you should try going to a Nazarene or a Wesleyan Church.
i think you perspective would change. if you went to a restaurant and didn't like the food, would you never eat again.
No hell, no heaven, no original sin, no salvation plan, thus, no christianity.
Albert Einstein: "A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."
Widening a circle of compassion, is "not" what most separatist religions are about. Most religions, establish and infuse their followers with a "foundation" of inner "insecurity", by the establishment of original sin, hell, and the need to be "more" than one is. Not, an Einsteinian path toward a compassionate enlightenment.
Albert Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
To be fair, Albert did use the pronoun "his", etc. to discuss the mechanism of Nature working, emanating, and manifesting itself through all of the Universe. That is far different than a "single" form, or "substance" that is indicative of a human male form. He went out of his way to state, that there is no such thing as a personal "god", thus no true "one form".
His "one" form, was Universal throughout, which we are all a part of. His conviction of the entirety of the Universe and its "connectedness", moving together as "one", with "reason", formed his idea or concept of "god", a "concept", much different than anything that resembles christianity in "any" sense I have ever understood christianity. Jesus, had no place in Alberts' spiritual views, period.
Its obvious that any survey conducted without definitively defining "god", is hedging on meaningless, as any results would provide total ambiguity, where the results can be used by anyone according to their own "concept" of "god". One might as well give out a survey that asks one question: "Is there more to the Universe than what is currently understood?" If the answer is "yes" by the majority, and that "unknown" forms the concept of "god", then, so be it, but the results need to be "stated" in that manner, and not displayed as a support pillar for a niche type "god" concept by one group.
Christians "know" their god, a personal god, one who has given them biblical guidance, and a Jesus to save them from the damned state of human affairs. And, its been discussed on this site before, but there are pews filled throughout the U.S., that hold non-believers in context with the christian god or bible. Many attend church, for social, or personal reasons, a sense of community for many.
""The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." [from "Science, Philosophy And Religion, A Symposium"]"
To Albert, "god", per his Natural perspective can be "known", by evolution of knowledge over time. In short, as humanity evolves and their sphere of awareness increases through knowledge, so closes the gap between the known and unknown.
One could conclude, with a little logic, that "we" are evolving, per "Alberts'" view, towards a oneness with the Universe, thus... becoming the definition of "god" per yesteryear's god standards.
The doctors who raise the dead "today", are the definitive "gods" per many of yesteryear - based on early CE god expectations. The "reason" many religions don't define "god", is obvious... if we can think it, we can be it or do it, and thus makes us gods eventually over time - religious cults had to kill many people throughout history, who were capable of godly acts in order to repress skepticism/doubt so as to maintain "control" of their religious followers.
Per my understanding of Albert, he would have considered "inspiration", enabled by curiosity, as part of the navigational mechanism used by Nature to elicit the changing perspective of humanity. Its the responsibility of humanity to remain keenly aware of their surroundings, and to continue to ask questions.
Albert Einstein: ""The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
In context, Albert states to never lose sight/perception of curiosity in that which one believes is holy, and to Albert... Nature, and its mechanisms, were considered "holy" to him.
One could easily discern, from reading a little about Albert, that meaning in life, is to listen to the context clues provided by Nature, and follow Nature's guidance as its revealed around us. In short, continue to seek that which is provided to humanity, slowly over time, and to remain vigilent to the slightest of clues. Thus, don't believe in a god, that requires one to stick their head in the sand, and I include all followers of clergy as sticking their heads in the sand, there is no excuse for pawning off ones' own responsibility for paying attention in life onto others, to include pawning off the responsibility for understanding surveys, created by others.
Far be it for me to put words in Albert's mouth, but, I'm inclined to believe, that he would not have accepted the christian form of "god", as a transcendent deity, that can never be known through/within Nature, to include the rare times when "god", shows up for a few years to publish books for humanity as a Natural cosmological relief effort.
By the way, I call my car "betsy", I hope one day, someone doesn't assign a gender to my car in the hope of attempting to prove that cars were in fact manufactured in male/female form. I don't personally believe my "car" has a different "form" than any other, in regards to pronoun use, perhaps I should now start using a uni-gender name... like "Pat".
If I saw someone fall over dead from eating the food, and I was feeling a litte nauseated from the food myself, sure, I'd stop eating there. The christian restaurant chain, gets most of its food from the same vendor - King James.
Perhaps, an entirely different food chain would be necessary? Well, no... one can easily live without religion, its not really like food, but if one were ever hungry, I am sure, they could cook for themselves if they made the effort. Not everyone needs a chef, to tell them what food looks like, well, unless the food is invisible. Hard to boil invisible water, right.
Excellent point! I use to work for a Baptist Center in the projects. These people had tons and tons of years of pain, and no hope. At least 90 percent of them had absolutely nothing, and no expectations in life. Kids who lived there felt like just graduating High School would be a miracle wihtin itself. These people considered someone who made 10 bucks an hour to be rich.
The point that I am getting at is, I don't know how many times I would hear pastors from other churches come in and teach these people to just be content with life the way it is. (Learn to be content in an area where there is drug dealing going on and drive by shootings) Look forward to the afterlife. One commented that he had been waiting on his ship to come in. He told God that he wanted this new truck, but God supposedly told him that he didn't need the new truck, so therefore, he told everyone that the reason why he didn't have his new truck is because God decided not to give him his new truck. I was sitting there thinking, what an idiot, go out and take out a loan or write a check and buy your damn truck. That is a prime example of the narrow mindness of Christianity. Not being able to make your own decisions with what I call, a God given ability to make your own decisions in life, which is something that many Christians seem to deny.
Another point is these people in the projects who have never learned how to accomplish anything in life and needed someone to help encourage them, and possibly help educate them, never got that kind of help from the church. All they ever got was free food, a pat on the back, and was told God loves them. Now, I am not knocking giving food to the needy, but the church just doesn't seem to interested in helping these people get out of the slums.
One more final example. We had this young lady, who I personally had nothing against her, who was like the assistant director of the Baptist Center that I worked at. She would lead a Bible Study each week to some of the residents there. I remember one comment that she made referring to the scripture that teaches to store up your treasures in heaven, and not on earth. She also went on to say that people should not expect nothing from God but salvation itself, and people who are seeking anything outside of it will never find anything. She also basically said that if they expect to have worldly success one day to forget it, because it will never happen. We should only seek the cross instead.
The funny thing about this lady is, every evening after work, she went home to her 7,500 square foot, $350,000.00 home out in the country where other high class people lived. Oh, and I forgot, she was married to a lawyer one time, and she got the house when they divorced. I even went to some of the residents and told them about her lifestyle and how hypocritical she was.
I got fired for doing that.
End of story.
you know your stuff. the cain and abel scene, what happened there and why? what do you make of it?
As a long term and firm non-believer I was quite shocked at your testimonial. I did not realize that someone as far gone on christianty as you were could actually snap out of it and come back to reality. Wow. Maybe there is hope after all for the religous zealots. I had written them off long go. Keep up the good work - very interesting web site.
Great site! I read your anti-testimony and was amazed how similar it was to my own experiences growing up! My parents dragged me along a very long and painful trek - first in the "Charismania" movement, in its various forms from established old fashioned fire and brimstone red in the faced pentacostal AG preachers to the vinyard and everywhere in between (one pastor said god would strike dead anyone who dared leave the church...I'm still here, guess he was a little off). After that they plunged headfirst into Calvinism ( via the OPC, and PCA) at which time my dad got the notion he was called to the ministry and went to seminary(Westminster Theological Seminary to be precise)....meanwhile in all this, I tried it all out with them...I said the sinner's prayer, I was a Royal Ranger scout, I memorized the bible verses and sat through morning, afternoon and evening devotions after every meal, prayed before school (I was homeschooled k-12), I tried to speak in tongues, experience everything they did, but through it all the emptiness of the words I was mouthing and the pathetic attempts I tried to put forth to gain their approval and love seemed more and more unreachable. They drafted me and my sisters into passing out tracts, and arguing with JW's and mormons (who actually are even more insane than Christians, if thats possible). In my teens, as my parents began drifting from the hard-line reformed movement (right about the time when they were confronted with issues such as headcovering and psalm-only singing - I absolutely put my foot down once and for all when they were talking about banning christmas, no presents, fuck that!)I taught VBS and sunday school, meanwhile struggling increasingly as any sexually repressed teenager does with religious mores clashing against hormones...I debased myself time and time again before a god who didnt seem to be hearing me, who wouldnt take away the urges I was told would damn me, who did nothing in regards to the fact that I was lonely, out of touch with anyone my age, sheltered and dying to actually just be normal - and around this time, my parents plunged into yet another new wierdness - my dad became the self-ordained pastor of a church of 8 people in a little yokel mountain town. Any interest I once had was gone, oh sure I tried from time to time to revive it, such as starting a bible study group at the JC I was attending (which nobody showed up for) but soon I was having a new world opened up before my eyes, and as I took more classes I realized there was a whole lot more out there to learn and maybe, just maybe, the xian's i knew didnt know everything. And I also started dating (behind my parents' back...weekend long ski retreats make good excuses by the way).
At this point, I was still pretty much an xian but beginning to question things. The first to go was the concept of hell...Loving god vs. wrathful eternal damnation...hmmmmm After that The TULIP petals fell off one by one. I had a major confrontation w/ my parents and was kicked out of the house...Then the stem was cut off -maybe jesus wasn't exactly god...Finally, does God even exist?
Where I'm at now...Well, several years later, rather than turning into the hepatitis infected druggie living with a stripper who is a member of the church of satan, I am a happily married guy of over a year with a baby, a good job, a college diploma, and a flourshing interest in neopaganism, while all the while maintaining a healthy skepticism of anything that claims to be the "right" way. Peace. - Dan
Interesting how an education will impact a religiously narrowed worldview. That's probably why most fundie families insist their kids attend religiously oriented universities.
Anyway, thanks again — enjoy reality.
I too stumbled upon your site while researching something else entirely.
I wanted to email my comments but honestly couldn't find a specific email link.
I know we're all busy these days, so I'll be brief with just a few thoughts:
1. Your testimony (since it's still a word used even legally, I left off the quote marks) is very well written. You obviously have a passion for learning and a gift for retaining. You have shown yourself to have studied much more Christian doctrine than other lay folks; and yes that is a lamentable fact, I agree.
2. I too have had my share of being hurt by people in the church and have been all over the landscape of Christian theology in my 20 years in the Church. I'm sincerely sorry for all of your hurt. I both sympathesize and empathsize with you. Again, I'm truly sorry, I can understand how you feel.
3. I've been mad at God at times, as you have been (maybe "are"?) I've questioned and argued with Jesus--even doubting His existence at times too. What makes Him so unique is no matter how much one digs, critiques, or "debunks" Jesus, He shines even more true.
Thanks for sharing your story. I hope it is unfinished. Would you please consider sitting quietly and attempting to just simply tell Jesus everything you feel--even read Him your testimony? I believe He already knows it anyway, and for you I'm only asking you for 20 min of your time. Then simply ask Him to take all that you've learned, all that you've experienced; all your hurts, confusions, and frustations, and just reveal Himself, period. Not doctrine (yet), just Himself.
Jesus really does love you. Search Him out. Eventually, He will show you sound doctrine and clear the cobwebs...I know, it's had to happen with me.
A helpless, miserable sinning machine saved by Christ on no merit of his own,
-Anthony
Speechless.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz....
I have had that scriputre quoted to me a million times.
I just love the way weak minded Christians lean on scripture.
That's the kind of Spiritual Propaganda that holds so many people down in oppression and misery.
Christianity steals people's dreams. I take pride in Success and having a successful career. Not what some dumbass narrow minded preacher tells me.
Man does not live on God alone.
It takes money to make it in this world baby!!!!
So these churches and preachers on TV need to shutup asking for money, because it is evil to pursue money.
We should just die to christ,and be broke the rest of our lives, and look forward to our heavenly home.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....
Put a bible in your hands and you look and sound alot like the worst of the crypto-evangelists from backwoods Mississippi.
...about as compassionate and intelligent.
And what's the deal with uptight turds and thick glasses?
One must hang on to the childhood mentality, if one wants to keep the faith.
Little do they realize their actions prove the non-existance of their make believe god and savior.
I am a Christian, a believer, or whatever we want to call it. Jesus Christ has completely changed my life. I'm happy, I have hope, joy, and basically a feeling of purpose. Not a bad life!!!
One question posted here was the idea that if God was a God of un-conditional love then why would I ever go to hell. I have two children and I love them as well as I can possibly love. I teach my children to do the right thing in life (don't play with fire, look both ways before you cross the street, those kinds of things) but if they decide to go away from that truth then they will get injured. Guess what I'll be at the hospital still loving them but angry that they risked their lives in disobedience. Also if my son has a history of making terrible decisions like drug use or the like and my daughter makes good decisions then which one will I give my inheritance to. I still love them both but as a father I refuse to enable behavior that I know hurts them. You too have that free choice to decide.
I happen to believe that God's Word shows us how to live a life of joy, love, peace and when we walk away from that we risk injury. Does anyone doubt that the basic tenants of faith such as the "ten commandments" are a fairly good moral compass to live by. God has given each of us the gift of free choice. You choose whether to walk in His word or not, He still loves you either way.
Let me ask this very simple question:
If I live for Christ (a life that teaches me to have integrity, live at peace with others, love my wife as I love my own flesh, live for my family, love my neighbor as myself, love those that hate me, seek peace with all men, turn the other cheek, walk 2 miles when only asked to walk one, etc....don't lie, steal, kill, commit adultery), and you are right and there's no God and no heaven, then you and me end up in the same nothingness when we die. But I'll bet my legacy will be more honorable than most.
But if I'm right and there is a Savior, a cross, a heaven and a hell then....
I hope I've offended no one and if I have I ask for your forgiveness.
Thank you.
However, there are many other options to consider. For instance, what if Islam is the correct religion? In that case we'd both be burning in horrific agony forever.
If you're happy living out your days in a fantasy or a dream, well then by all means enjoy the delusion. I'm honestly happy for you, and in some ways envy you.
Unfortunately I'm not wired that way. I crave reality, even if that reality is in any way appears less appealing.
Frankly, to me, it's not what feels good that matters, it's what's true that counts.
That's fantastic, but please understand---one can have "hope", "joy", and "purpose" without the belief in Jesus Christ. Moreover, this is an EX-Christian website, and if you read some of the articles, you shouldn't be too shocked to find out that, 1) Your personal testimony regarding your Jesus is immaterial to us, as many of us used to have the same "life changing experiences", only now we know that it was clearly self-deception. In other words, your belief that your Jesus is the "absolute truth" amounts to nothing outside of your head, and 2) We've heard a GAZILLION excuses as to why we should still believe in your Jesus, yet, not-to-shockingly, we've not been shown one ounce of evidence that your Jesus, or any other supernatural being, exists.
Anon: "I teach my children to do the right thing in life (don't play with fire, look both ways before you cross the street, those kinds of things) but if they decide to go away from that truth then they will get injured. Guess what I'll be at the hospital still loving them but angry that they risked their lives in disobedience."
The parent/child analogy as been used myriads of times here, and it fails every time. Okay, so when your children are discharged from the hospital, will you take them to a remote place and set them on fire?....just for being "disobedient"? Of course not. But that's precisely what your Jesus does---he gets his revenge be incinerating people in Hell for eternity. And this is for such things as doubting. That's a "father/son" relationship I can do without.
Anon: "Does anyone doubt that the basic tenants of faith such as the "ten commandments" are a fairly good moral compass to live by."
Is gang rape okay, then? Are you telling us that you'd be compelled to forcably take sex from a women, only because you didn't read somewhere that it's "wrong"?? You don't give yourself much credit, do you? What about working on the Sabbath? Should we kill all people who work on Sunday? THINK about what you actually believe, and the implications.
Anon: "You choose whether to walk in His word or not, He still loves you either way."
What bible have you been reading? Your Jesus does not "love" the people he sends to hell. He "hates" the sin, AND the sinner.
Anon: "Let me ask this very simple question:...(insert Pascal's wager)"
Translation: "Play it safe". Okay, Anon, if you're going to believe "just in case", then you should switch to Islam, because their hell is much worse than the Christian hell. Don't DELAY!....do this NOW!...."just in case".
Anon closes with: "I hope I've offended no one and if I have I ask for your forgiveness."
Well, you've implied that we're going suffer in hell for eternity because we don't believe like you do. Gee, I guess that's not TOO offensive.
I said I prefer reality.
Now, you've told me what you believe, which I already had guessed. However, can you explain why you think your belief in a supernatural deity who impregnated a woman so he could mystically sacrifice himself to himself to appease his own wrath and not be forced to roast his children has anything to do with reality?
I don't believe in supernatural invisible entities of any kind because there is no evidence that such creatures exist. Magic is fun to imagine — Harry Potter is cool like Jesus — but reality is not the same as pretending. Please give me some evidence that what you believe is anything more than pretend.
I only want to say one thing to the person who says I got saved "just in case". That's not at ALL what I said. I excepted Christ because MY life was incomplete. I could not find hope, peace, or joy without Him. My statement was "if" there's no God then I am still very happy with my CHOICE.
I think that faith is the question and I think everyone here has faith. Faith to believe or not believe. If you want me to stop posting here I will honor that request, after all this is your house. I have faith to believe in God, I exercise that faith everyday; you have faith to believe there's no God.
The real reason I posted here was because of belittling remarks made about all Christians because of some bad apples. If one Youth Pastor does something terribly immoral then are all Christians immoral? Are all white males bad becasue of Ted Bundy; are all Muslims wicked because of a few terriosts; are all atheists evil because of some that do terrible things.
I'm not asking you to embrace my ideas based on a few comments I make on some website. The truth is I wish and hope that my life will speak of my faith.
Again if this site (webmaster) doesn't want me to post then I'll stop. Thank you again for just hearing me. I hope you all have a great day.
My name is Greg by the way. I really didn't think you would want me to sign up.
"If I live for Christ (a life that teaches me to have integrity, live at peace with others, love my wife as I love my own flesh, live for my family, love my neighbor as myself, love those that hate me, seek peace with all men, turn the other cheek, walk 2 miles when only asked to walk one, etc....don't lie, steal, kill, commit adultery), and you are right and there's no God and no heaven, then you and me end up in the same nothingness when we die. But I'll bet my legacy will be more honorable than most.
But if I'm right and there is a Savior, a cross, a heaven and a hell then...."
This is known as "Pascal's Wager". It boils down to intimidation, and yes, believing "just in case". I'd be happy to explain how I arrive at this, if need be.
Best regards.
No sir, it does not take "faith" to either lack belief in something or hold a position of neutrality. Where there is "faith", there may be belief, but there is an underlying uncertainty...e.g.. you "believe" the Red Sox will win; you have "faith" that they'll win...but you cannot "know" that they'll win. It does not take "faith" to hold the position that it cannot be known if they'll win until we SEE the results.
Moreover--an objective/unbiased universal higher intelligence may, or may not exist. It cannot be known in an absolute sense. Conversely, a personal, subjective, lower intelligence, humanistic deity, such as the Christian Biblegod, cannot, and does not exist---either in reality, or conceptually. Much like we can say that a "married bachelor" does not exist.
Anonymous/Greg said: "The real reason I posted here was because of belittling remarks made about all Christians because of some bad apples."
Christians, and especially their figure-heads, claim a higher morality, positing that those morals were bequeathed to them via a book supposedly inpsired by a "God". In other words, they've got the higher moral ground. Simply put---we're saying that THAT is utter bullshit. Yes, there are "amoral" people from every religion, race, creed, country, etc....and all that shows is that "morals" aren't dictated by religious belief, but by what is mutually and collectively agreed upon by humanity, not forgetting cultural relativity. To cannibals, eating flesh is not "wrong".
Anonymous/Greg: "The truth is I wish and hope that my life will speak of my faith."
That's what any "God fearing" Muslim would say. "Faith" is deadly if misused and/or abused. If you are a good person, chances are, you'd be good without your "faith".
Best regards.
"I think that faith is the question and I think everyone here has faith. Faith to believe or not believe."
Faith lets examine the origins of the word "Faith", shall we?
Faith, it's origin is, ans. the Bible.
Where do we hear about faith? ans. the Bible.
Where did you hear about the word faith? ans. the Bible.
Where the first words muttered out of your mouth when you were 2 years old, faith, god or jesus? No!
Most likely your first words were, mommy or daddy or poo poo, etc!
Where did you hear those words, faith, god, jesus, heaven hell, etc.? ans. the Bible.
You see Greg, had you never heard those words ever mentioned before, you would not be repeating them yourself today.
Where and only do these words originate? god, jesus, satan, heaven, hell, angels, saints, virgin birth, miracles, souls, spirits, holy ghosts, sin, savior, faith, etc.
Answer:
The Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So Greg tell us how much Faith do you have? 1/2 teaspoon? 1/4 once, a mustard seed size?
Jesus supposedly said that if one had as much faith as a mustard seed, then he could cast a mountain into the sea.
So please be so kind as to tell us the exact quanity of faith that you have, can you move a mustard seed into the sea? If not, then you have very little faith, a deadly sin, oh ye of little faith!
Let the one with a little faith, be the first one to cast a mustard seed into the sea, saith the Lord!
You see Greg the word Faith is a false placebo word that christians use to coax people into thinking they believe in the impossible.
From my observation, Greg you said you believe because you choose to believe, your belief is not based on fact, or evidence, or an imposed threat of hell, it based on what you have selected to choose to believe.
I'm not trying to offend you, I'm merely expressing my observation of your comment, and trying to show you that you have chosen to believe because you merely want to believe and it was not based on fact or evidence or an imposed threat of a burning hell, if you do not believe. Am I close to right in this observation?
So you choose to believe the Bible is true because, your real reason?
___________________________________________________
What is the basis for your strong belief in the bible?
___________________________________________________
Was it from your less than a mustard seed amount of faith?
You must confess that you have less than a mustard seed amount of faith, would you atleast concede that you have less than a mustard seed amount of faith?
I'm looking for true honesty here. Thanks in advance for your honesty!
Kind Regards,
Who is no-god?
Do you have the faith to believe in no-Santa? Or no-leprechaun? How about no-Zeus, no-Allah, and no-Ra?
Greg, I know Christian apologists like to say it takes more faith to believe in no-God (whomever that is) than it does to believe in God (meaning Yahweh and son) but that's not how it works. I lake faith in God. You either have faith in God or you don't. I lack a belief in God. You either have a belief or you don't have a belief.
Do you believe in Zeus? If not, why not? Do you think it takes a lot of faith to not believe in Zeus? Do you believe in Allah? If not, why not. Millions of people fall down several times a day praying to Allah. Do you think it takes a lot of faith to not believe in that deity?
What takes faith is to believe is something you can't see, hear, touch, smell, or feel with any of our five senses, can't locate with any of our sensory devices, and can't confirm experimentally in any way. If I told you that billions of tiny invisible "sticky spirits" were holding the world together and without those tiny tacky tots everything would blow apart, would you believe me? What if I really believed it? What if I was absolutely convinced that there were itty-bitty glue spirits holding the world together? Would you believe in them then?
Greg, when you figure out why you don't believe in all the other thousands of gods that have been worshiped and adored throughout human history, then you will understand why I don't believe in yours.
Finally Greg, there are three choices for posting: register with Blogger, click the Other button and type in a pseudonym without registering, and of course anonymous, which you've discovered.
You've just described my life, but I don't believe in Jesus. Do you honestly think Christians have the edge over everyone on the planet when it comes to moral inclinations? Do you think only Christians live peaceful happy lives with their families? I sincerely beg to differ.
The question was asked about throwing mountains in the sea "if I had the faith". So I guess I am to question my faith because I have yet to cast any large hills into some ocean. The scripture is found in Matthew chapter 17 and it finds Christ talking with His disciples regarding a struggle that they had dealing with a problem in a young boys life. Their ministry to this boy went completely without result and after Jesus successfully dealt with the issue they asked Him privately why aren't we as productive as you. So I want to respond on just a few points as to the words of Christ and especially as to my faith:
1. The word "faith" in the text used here (and in most places in the Bible) is defined as a moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), abstractly, constancy in such profession. As in reading any text there can be so many interpretations and as I write this I can only speak as to my interpretation of this scripture. I believe that here (as in most places in scripture) we could plant the word faithfulness where we see faith. If you were constant/faithful/convicted of a truth then you could move a mountain. Do I believe that Christ was literally talking about moving literal mountains? Personally I do not. I have "mountains" in my life. Some are in my checkbook, others in my marriage, some in my mind; and I've found that only when I show this kind of faith are those mountains removed. Did He really mean that we should not throw REAL pearls before REAL swine; did He really mean that I had to eat His LITERAL flesh and drink His REAL blood or was that a metaphor also? As a point Jesus later said that this kind of problem/devil can only be dealt with through much prayer and fasting (or faithfulness).
2. If He spoke literally concerning moving mountains with faith. I have studied some about faith and have found that "faith is the substance of things hoped for". Substance by definition is the quality of being important, valid, or significant. Jesus was asked once that since He was the Son of God and had this faith then He should throw Himself off the pinnacle and His faith in God would save Him. He answered by saying that He would not tempt the Lord which in my language means He said, "I don't have to prove my belief by doing some trick". Faith to me is real, about helping me deal with real problems, not doing some David Copperfield trick. If you need that trick to prove that faith is real then you don't have faith. I can hear some one now saying "here's someone else saying they have faith but I'll just have to believe them". I have seen some mountains moved in my life with real bonfide (bad spelling) miracles but I would rather my life, my faithfulness, be the trophy I hold up that speaks of my faith. About the Sox, they won't win without Big Poppy. If you don't believe they'll win then you must have a "strong confidence" that someone else will win. That's still faith.
Finally, maybe I have mustard seed faith, maybe I have turnip seed faith, maybe I have boulder sized faith. Time will tell! Paul said "he that endures till the end shall be saved". Check back with me in a few years; if I'm still running the race, still overthrowing mountains, then I had/have faith.
Jesus was asked repeatedly to PROVE, give EVIDENCE, that He was the Christ. He said that the only sign they would be given was that of Jonah. Three days in the earth and the grave (last I checked) was empty. Believe it or not, that's up to you. I believe it with every fiber of my being.
Thank you again for the civilized conversation.
Greg
Greg, with all due repect, you're not getting it. Again, "no God" isn't a "thing"...as in, "SOME-THING". "No leprechauns" is not a "thing". "No" = 0. Furthermore, the non-believer's stance isn't about "complete convidence". On the contrary, the religious conviction---YOUR position---is the one where "complete confidence" is implied.
Greg: "As in reading any text there can be so many interpretations and as I write this I can only speak as to my interpretation of this scripture."
Um, this is the whole point, Greg. It's ALL open to subjective interpretation. And you say that "any text" has this subjective ambiguity? Why is it, then, that we can all agree on what a geometry book says? You either interpret it correctly and it's theorems work, or you misinterpret it and they don't work.
Greg asked: "Did He really mean that we should not throw REAL pearls before REAL swine; did He really mean that I had to eat His LITERAL flesh and drink His REAL blood or was that a metaphor also?"
Did "He" mean that you would "REALLY" go to a "LITERAL" place called "Heaven"?... or did he mean that you would have inner peace in this lifetime? Again, if one thing can be metaphorical, ANYTHING can be as such.
Greg said: "He answered by saying that He would not tempt the Lord which in my language means He said, 'I don't have to prove my belief by doing some trick'. "
In my language it means that it's just one more poor excuse. This tells me that it's much more likely that he doesn't exist at all. Again, you define your Jesus in terms of what he CANNOT do, instead of what he CAN do.
Greg said: "If you need that trick to prove that faith is real then you don't have faith."
Right. If you KNOW something, then you don't NEED "Faith".
Greg said: "If you don't believe they'll win then you must have a "strong confidence" that someone else will win. That's still faith."
Irrelevant conclusion. To remain neutral doesn't require "faith".
Greg said: "Jesus was asked repeatedly to PROVE, give EVIDENCE, that He was the Christ. He said that the only sign they would be given was that of Jonah."
Yet, he appeared to hundreds of people THEN.
Greg said: "Three days in the earth and the grave (last I checked) was empty. Believe it or not, that's up to you. I believe it with every fiber of my being."
How did you "check"? Okay, so again, your argument, like so many of the "Faithful", amounts to "I believe". Bigfoot trackers "believe" in bigfoot.
Wow you are awesome at this. I admire your faith, faithfulness to what you believe; or is it what you don't believe. I forget because you don't have faith, or you do have faith.
How did your parents prove that they loved you? How did your spouse prove it? Your kids? Your friends? By what they said or by your faith in them. PS if you've never believed that someone loves you I'm sorry.
I'm running out of comp battery I'll talk again after a quick charge...
To Be Continued
Quote: "Wow you are awesome at this. I admire your faith, faithfulness to what you believe; or is it what you don't believe. I forget because you don't have faith, or you do have faith.(?)"
It's not that you "forget" what I've been saying over and over about "belief" and "Faith", but more likely that you don't want to accept it. It's okay....your religious conviction get's in the way, and I understand, because I was once there.
Quote: "How did your parents prove that they loved you? How did your spouse prove it? Your kids? Your friends? By what they said or by your faith in them. PS if you've never believed that someone loves you I'm sorry."
"Love" is a verb as well as a noun. The important people in my life "prove" their love to me by their actions---actions that I can detect with my physical senses. To merely read that someone loves me on a piece of paper would mean nothing had I never met them.
Best regards.
CONTEXT: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea. The context was that they were unable to do something right on the spot so Jesus says, "if you can just be faithful" you can do big things. These come out by "prayer and fasting" only. I'm so hungry I could eat a horse, metaphorically speaking of course.
Quick question to webmaster: If you are against all gods (you said you were an athiest) why don't you have a picture of Calvin taking a leak on Buddha or Mohammed. Have you ever heard the saying "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much". Do you really believe in nothing or are you just angry at Christ for not satisfying your intellect? I ask this question very sincerely. I am always troubled when I see pictures like that but I just don't get why everything is about Him and not about all of the gods you say aren't real.
Jesus I guess gave us credit that we would be able to differintiate between metaphor and literal. I will tear down this temple and rebuild it in three days - metaphor. The Son of Man must be crucified and rise from the dead - literal. I will make you fishers of men - metaphor (man would that hook hurt). I send you as sheep among wolves - metaphor. For God so loved boomSLANG and Greg (literal) that He gave His only begotten Son.
Peace
What god would that be again?
Sorry, I just don't believe in gods. I also don't believe in leprechauns, in Big Foot, in the Tooth Fairy, or in Palm Reading.
I also don't believe in Krishna, Zeus, Ra, or Allah.
I would guess that you believe in none of those things I've mentioned either. When you, Greg, figure out why you don't believe in any of those listed things, then you will understand why I don't believe in your deity either.
When it comes to all those supernatural entities, you are an atheist. The only difference between me and you is I believe in one less god than you.
If you would quit practicing your amateur evangelizing and read for a few weeks, you might be better equipped to carry on a more intelligible exchange. Until then, I bid you adieu.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Otay!
I just think your religion is bunk, that's all. Am I not entitled to that opinion?
From the easy way you've become enraged, my position on your religion stands.
You may want to read the site disclaimer linked in the upper right-hand corner of this page.
What would it take for you to believe again? I'll pray it happens for you. This is a very serious proposition. Give me something within reason that if it happened you would believe. Maybe someone to say a specific phrase to you in the next few days. Let me know and I will pray fervently that God would show up. Don't do something like say I want a dinosaur.
It's simply really. I was born in America, where Christianity is the dominant religion, Christianity is the religion that screwed with my thinking for so many years. That's why.
I happen to think those other religions you mentioned are nonsense, but since I didn't loose 30 years of my life following those idiotic religions, I don't personally have any emotional or economic baggage associated with those religions. I have no reason to hate those religions. I do have a reason to hate Christianity.
By way of analogy: You can't hate someone else's ex-wife. But you can hate your own.
Again please forgive me if I have come off angry. I tried to even throw a little humor in. I am happy.
Good luck tp you.
To be more clear, I am talking about finding a human being who has lost an entire limb and can show that a new one has grown in its place.
An "I heard a story about" testimony will not suffice. Medically verifiable documentation will suffice.
Thanks.
Again forgive me and I will not visit this site again.
Adios.
Awesome. It has been a joy to discuss with you. You are obviously well read and studied.
I'm one of those rare breeds who if someone doesn't hear me and/or understand me clearly, I will repeat myself over and over..::cough::..until hopefully they get it = )
Quote: "Do you say 'I'm as hungry as a horse, metaphorically?'I suppose you just expect people to figure out by the CONTEXT of what you're saying that you're just trying to prove a point that you're very hungry."
For starters, there's no conditions attached to whether someone understands if I'm hungry, or not. Secondly, it's no stretch of the imagination to think that a "horse" get's hungry---so if I said, "Boy, Greg, I have the urge to sing like a horse", that would bring what I said into question, because we know that horses don't sing. BTW, is the biblical passage where a donkey speaks the human language metaphorical?..or is it literal?
Quote: "Jesus I guess gave us credit that we would be able to differintiate between metaphor and literal."
I wish I could give Jesus the same credit for getting "His" message across clearly and unambiguously. After all, "He" is presumably "perfect", right?(nevermind)
Quote: "The Son of Man must be crucified and rise from the dead - literal. I will make you fishers of men - metaphor (man would that hook hurt)."
Satan?..the "talking serpent"? Talking vegetation? Are you familiar with the "Flat Earth Society"? They obviously misinterpreted something somewhere along the way...or wait...was it the rest of us?
Quote: "For God so loved boomSLANG and Greg (literal) that He gave His only begotten Son."
Like I said, "love" is a verb.
Um, did you happen to read that on an Apologetics website?...because you certainly didn't read it in George Washington's AUTO-biography, did you?
Well it really hurts when someone attacks the self-appointed halo and thanks Greg for not addressing any of my questions posed to you, and yes you do come off as amateurish and unprepared for the battle, so go away and indulge yourself and self gloat in the man made fable book you so fervently cherish.
Maybe some day you can see the world past your playpen mentality, although you may be considered an adult, you refuse to let go of your childhood fairytale myth that you have clutched in your possesive mind all your life, if myths and fantastic fables bring you inner feeling of false comfort as it does millions of immature weaklings then you have no business, visiting websites such as this one.
So go your own way and sing, Let me hide thyself in thee.
I did answer your questions to the best of my ability. You asked about faith. I tried to define faith; where the word originated and what it meant from Matthew chapter 17 which you my friend quoted, not me. Faith is the strong conviction or trust in someone or something. I also showed you the definition of the Greek word pistis which is used in Matthew chapter 17 and translated as faith in English. That definition was the belief in something and abstractly constancy in the following of that belief - or faithfulness.
The word, or idea, of faith does not originate from the Bible or even from the Christian belief. People have had faith (of course it would be called something else in their language) before the days of Abraham. Egyptians had a "strong conviction" in their gods. People in the Far East would sacrifice their children to their gods before Abraham was ever born; that is pretty strong faith.
You asked me if I had mustard seed faith and I answered you by saying that I might have mustard seed, turnip seed, or boulder size faith. That faith is faithfulness to what I do or don't believe. I guess my life will speak as to whether I remain faithful. I also tried to show that I believe that Christ was not trying to quantify faith. He was using a metaphor that His followers would understand. A mustard seed is small and if you have even just a very small amount of faith, again faithfulness, you can see great things happen in life.
I know everyone here hates what I'm saying but I think you all have a lot more than "mustard seed" faith. You believe and practice your faith. Your belief that there is no Supreme Being known as God. Something does not have to be a god; a noun is defined as a person, place, or idea! You believe in the idea that there is no God.
I've learned something however in my studies of human behavior and that is the intimidation of an intellectual bully. What do you do when you feel superior to anyone who thinks something, believes something, you feel is foolishness? Call them an idiot. If that makes you feel better about yourself ok. I am fully prepared to say that I do have the intellect that you obviously possess. I have never read one book on the ideaology of Athiesm so I do not quote its verses.
I have gone through a few of these pages just to scan the great writings of Ben "Ironic how people revert to kindergarden name calling and teasing when someone steps on their mental delusion." That was one of his. He called a 13 year old boy a fool, and idiot. Yet time would not allow me to tell you the sand he has kicked in the faces of others who don't toe the line of his reality. How many people called Columbus an idiot for thinking the world was flat? And yes that analogy works both ways. I like chocoloate milk and you like strawberry. Am I an idiot because strawberry is obviously a more intellectual choice. I live my life as a disciple of Jesus Christ; you live your life as a disciple of someone (insert name here) by the books you've read. You folks talk about being free thinkers but I've yet to read one original thought from ANYONE (Christian or non-christian alike). Someone said that if God would just make an amputee grow a arm he would believe; so being a computer geek I scoured the internet for hours and found that even that request was not original. I found countless pages (dating back as much as 5 years) of people saying the exact same things. You say I am living in a fantasy world for quoting a Bible yet you quote a scientist. Are you the original atheist?
Smooth...
I'm really not that dumb just totally stink at typing.
Greg, greg, greg...you just refuse to get it, don't you? Look, the Egyptians "believed" in Amon Ra with every ounce, or "mustard seed", or whatever, of "Faith" that YOU believe in YOUR Jesus. Yet, you don't believe in Amon Ra, do you Greg? No....and do you have to "practice" to NOT believe in Amon Ra? Answer: No, you do not. Do you sit around at your local "Shrine of the Nonexistant Deities", and "pray" for Amon Ra's non-existance? Answer: No, you do not. Greg: It DOES NOT take "Faith", "Worship", "religion" "practice"..or any OTHER rituals to NOT have a belief in something. It's such a simple concept, and I think you would "get it" if you didn't have the idea in your head that you think that you can somehow "level" the playing field by equating Atheism/Agnostism with religious "Faith". And EVEN IF you could, it would STILL not make your personal belief in Jesus an objective "Truth". Greg, you cannot "default" your particular God into existance. 'Sorry.
Quote: "Your belief that there is no Supreme Being known as God. Something does not have to be a god; a noun is defined as a person, place, or idea! You believe in the idea that there is no God."
Lol...give it hell, ol' boy!!! Um, Greg, there are many Ex-Christians here who are Deists. Notwithstanding, the existance of a "Supreme Being known as God" cannot objectively be proven or disproven. But no one's saying that a Supreme Intelligence is disproven, only UNproven. The burden of proof is in lap of the one POSITING the claim. And all that aside, YOU are the one making the leap from "Supreme Being known as God" to your Biblegod.....YOU are. Even the Deist can say that the Christian Biblegod does not exist with as much certainty as they can say that square circles don't exist. Greg, all religions think their god-heads are the "Supreme Being known as God". Is this sinking in yet?
Quote: "I have never read one book on the ideaology of Athiesm so I do not quote its verses."
Evidently, not. BTW, have you ever read one single book cover-to-cover in your life that opposes your Christian worldview? I would guess, "no".
Quote: "You folks talk about being free thinkers but I've yet to read one original thought from ANYONE (Christian or non-christian alike)."
Irrelevant conclusion. Greg---how many different ways can one say that fairies, imps, unicorns, and anything else with zero referant in reality, DO NOT exist? If I tell you a GAZILLION different ways that there's a boogie man under your bed, will you believe it then? Think.
Quote: "You say I am living in a fantasy world for quoting a Bible yet you quote a scientist. Are you the original atheist?"
Are you serious? Now you're equating science with religious dogma? You've really got a lot to learn, my friend.
It was me who said I'd believe if you could show me an amputee that had grown a new limb.
You just condemned me for asking it, because it's been asked before. But the fact remains that you failed to present an example of even a single amputee that has grown a new limb.
Your god seems a bit weak.
Do you believe in hobgoblins? Well, do you? Because if you don't believe in hobgoblins, then I guess you have a belief in the idea of no hobgoblins, which makes those who believe in hobgoblins and those who don't believe in hobgoblins equal in their beliefs, right?
Greg, in all sincerety you really should take a course, or read a book on logic. Not believing in something is not faith, it is a lack of faith, pure and simple.
I don't believe in magic. That doesn't mean I have faith in the idea of no-magic.
This is sad.
Are you astrong atheist or a weak atheist? Do you KNOW there's no god or just lack a belief in god?
Semantics? "To have" something and "to NOT have" something is hardly ambiguous wording. They are completely opposing ideas. It doesn't take "Faith" to NOT have belief.
We are told, when when we are young, that by believing in Jesus and God, that this makes us very intelligent, in other words, a much overly-honored preacher will get up and say anyone with the knowledge of God is all the intelligence anyone needs, people just like you Greg have determind that a knowledge or belief in Jesus or God is all the profound knowledge that anyone needs which I'm sure you'll whole heartedly agree.
But this is a total lie, do you realize how many people just give up on life, after finding Jesus? They think that they have found all there is to life, they think they have found the "Key" to all knowledge and understanding, and you come off sounding just like them, you give off this pious and self-gloating that only you have been worthy of enough to have found universal understanding, based only on your imaginable faith, that you've been so fool heartedly been told is a "Gift". You seem to come off as if it's "You" that have this rank above others, just based upon you willingness to believe in a most fantastic unbelievable fable and myth, why can't you or why do are you not willing to see that a virgin birth savior is sooo outstandingly unbelievable, why did it take your imaginary god over 4000 years to come up with the virgin birth salvation plan? I'm talking about the "God" that created the whole entire universe, with over 125 billion galaxies similar to our own in "Just Six Days???" a creator with this profound ability and the best thing this creator could come up with is a virgin birth savior???? After 4000 years?????Come on Greg, give it up, the childhood imaginary fables and falsehoods.
Yeah it takes faith alright!!! A ton of faith, much more than a typical human being can muster.
And please do not come back and say I'm trying to measure faith by volume, that is not my point, you know what my point is.
The Jesus myth is the most fantastic lie and myth ever to be devised in the history of the human race!!! There's no intelligence in believing in lies and myths.
I am coming to the conclusion that most of you find great solace in logic. That it is not logical to believe what I do, and it is very logical to think as you do. I've found that you most think there is no absolute truth, so I'm guessing that truth and morality must be subjective or relative?
Ben would you consider yourself a "weak atheist" or "strong atheist"? Do you KNOW that there is no God or do you just not have a belief in that there is a God?
Greg,
"I have and will continue to study the idea of atheism..."
There's really only one thing you should consider, in my opinion:
1. Consider what it means to have faith versus not having faith. That is, consider the difference between your faith in God, and your lack of faith in say, Zeus. Which is proactive (i.e., takes effort)?
When you have the answer, let us know.
"I've found that you most think there is no absolute truth, so I'm guessing that truth and morality must be subjective or relative?"
Speaking only for myself, I think there is a hierarchy of truth. Some propositions simply have a greater number of attributes that give it credence over others. In other words, not all propositions considered true are, but may have elements of truth within them.
As for morality, it is subjective. This is not the same as moral nihilism, though. For example, ask anyone whether a lie is immoral and most will respond immediately that it is. However, there are times when it is supremely moral to do so. Take for instance Jews and those that sympathized with their plight living in Nazi Germany. They were completely justified in lying to, or otherwise deceiving Nazi authority. There are also times when killing is moral, and times when it is not.
And those are just a couple examples.
Consider rape and biblical teaching. Virtually every human being today considers rape immoral, yet the Bible has no prohibition against it, and in some cases rewards it. For tacit endorsement of rape, see Num. 31:18 and God's reaction in Num. 31:25-27. In Deut. 22:28-29 a virgin who is a victim of rape is considered the property of her father, who receives 50 shekels of silver from the rapist. The victim is then required to marry the rapist. If a rape of an engaged virgin happens in a city, both victim and rapist are to be stoned to death, but if it happens in the country then only the rapist dies (Deut. 22:23-25.
I only mention this to point out how morality seems to have changed since biblical times.
I'm just wondering what makes you "think" that you need a savior? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Where you born with that information or was it something that you've heard repeated a million times, just like we have?
Us Atheists have decided we do not need a savior! Why? because we link "people" that wrote the Bible with ignorance, you must realize that the Bible was written over 2000 years ago, by people that thought the Heart was the center of all thought and emotion, surely an inspired all knowing God, would have told them about the Brain...huh? But they had no medical knowledge!!! Why not? Yet they knew all there was about an invisible god...huh?
They also thought sickness was caused by Demons, also that the Sun revolved around the Flat Earth and that the Earth was the center of the universe, will you side with ignorance and beliefs or do you prefer to believe a bizarre fable? Can't you see that the bible writers had absolutely no "Merrit" simply because the voices that they heard which was just their own voices and they thought it was from a God, just like you perhaps, you probabaly think you talk to a God, but the bible has been translated over 1600 times, so if a bible god talks to anyone, it must be translated over 1600 times also, unless of course your bible god has suddenly learned how to speak english.
You see Greg, the bible shoots itsself in the foot under close scrutiny only those that prefer not to scrutinize the bible because they prefer not to see the fallacy and the errors, because they want to believe so badly, no matter how foolish or ignorant the bible may appear, they want their belief to become true.
The threat of Hell was invented to punnish those that had they dealed with people that did them wrong properly, had they stood up to them and dealed with them rightly, instead of being a coward and let them trespass over, say perhaps you, now you'll let the imaginary god deal with them in the hereafter, that way you can say god is the final judge, but in reality, it is from being a coward in the first place. That is the reason so many want there to be a "Hell" to punnish those that have done wrong to them. I know, because I was raised to be a religious coward, and my father is a total coward and he cowers to the imaginary Jesus and to the church and to the preachers.
Jesus was described as a coward, he prefered to die than to stand up to his aggressors, he left the judgement up to his imaginary god, he never stood up to anyone.
That is what religion is, a cowards reprive. Many people will get up in church and say that they are ready to meet god, but let someone walk into a church with a gun and watch them scatter, they will herd and trample over each other to get out of harms way.
Religious cowards! Let me hide myself in thee! Very famous lyrics!
You see Greg, you've chosen the easy way out, you're trusting that your bible will turn out to be true and thusly leaving you looking so grand, you've chosen the cowards venue, we've dedcided it's all bunk, because we once fell for the nonsense ourselves, now we know better and every day that I live, each day confirms in me how insane and ridiculous the bible is, there cannot exist a god and ignorant as the one described in the bible, there cannot be a god that had never been seen and yet described by human beings.
So that leaves the door open for inspiration. Inspiration is not an exact science! Inspiration can come under the form of many things, including drugs, alcohol, and the condition of the mind at the time of inspiration, would you agree?
So this Bible god has all the resources at his finger tips, yet he puts man in charge of describing man's "true way" to salvation, you know the very men that he regretted making in the first place! Genesis 6:6
Can there be a god that stupid and that callous? Yet this God is willing that no one should perish, yet he puts salvation in total charge of men and we have over 1500 denominations and sects of religions, how is that possible when god is totally absolute?
So this god hands over his responciblity of leading people to salvation that he created from soil, into the trusting hands of men?
What you actually have faith in is men and their word, not the word of a god, No, God nor Jesus never wrote one single word in the bible. So your trust and faith is in men that lived over 2000 years ago. That is such a stretch, believing in people and what they thought were inspired to write down on papyrus as coming from a god, how grandiose? What serendipity? No wonder they were glad, god finally decided to talk to them, how fantastically bizarre?
I'm just wondering how come the bible god chose the middle-east to inspire, why not the eskimos or the aboriginies or the amazon peoples or the native american indians? Because opium was not currently available to them.
I've been reading through Dave's 'anti-testimony' and various responses.
I've found Dave's input very refreshing and been encouraged by his frankness, logical thinking and emotional honesty. I suspect his thoughts are reflected covertly by many Christians as well as those that have had the courage to 'come out'.
I've been inspired to persue a 'project' that has been on the back burner for some time. I confess to Christian affiliations (hope I wont be shot down or verbally assassinated for this (Ben)) - however, I have always held reservations about the lack of genuine dialogue about the nature of faith and its apparent certainties. Therefore I'm beginning my own blog: 'A Certain Kind of Faith' - with an emphasis on 'kind of' both towards certainty and faith.
I will be promoting this among Christians to explore the very questions Dave has raised. Christianity needs to be more honest with itself and learn more from the experiences of people like Dave and many others.
If this results in more 'coming out' than 'coming in' then so be it - although I suspect the paradigm of 'in' and 'out' is less significant than we think it is. Choosing which side of a fence we sit on is often an unnecessary decision (although occasionaly painfully required) - and when it happens we only serve to delude, divide and destroy.
When people hold to precious certainties it appears to me that it brings out the poorest qualities of human behaviour. We defend our certainties at all cost as the tragic history of Christianity has all too regularly evidenced. Sadly, we can do the same verbally when we discuss and debate our thinking. Often reducing our arguments to name calling and claims to being of greater intellect than the 'other'. Maybe, at times, this is the case. But how does it serve to improve the intellectual application of the 'other' when they feel belittled and insulted? Is this more about winning than actually learning something new?
Genuine debate must leave the 'other' open to hold their world view even if we find it absurd. The alternative is to force our view on others - the antithesis of discussion and debate.
So I join this debate and hope those that are committed to free thinking can genuinely debate without fear of assasination? For how we behave in the heat of debate often betrays more about us than our argument does. As someone once said 'Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination'.
Thanks again, Dave, for giving me the nudge to promote honest discussion - come what may.
Best wishes to you and yours..
Paul
Then he's back. Civilized for only one moment.
That last comment was at least long, but since I have been convicted of not answering questions, I must say you never answered mine. You just regergitated the same stuff I've read from you over and over. It's obvious that you don't believe (got it).
I went to answers.com (non-christian research website) and did some research into atheism. There is implicit (weak) atheism and explict (strong) atheism. My question was which are you? A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort. Maybe this time instead of just calling what I believe dumb you would answer as to what stance you've taken. Weak or strong? Implicit or Explicit? Ignostism? Well forget that last one if you were ignostic you wouldn't even be here fighting about it.
You are right in saying that I heard from various sources that I needed a savior. It also bore witness with how I felt and what I had experienced in my life. I eat brocoli because my mom said a million times "you've got to eat more than just hamburgers and fries". Should I not eat vegetables because it was not an original thought. I think the people who told me a "million times" that I needed Christ are great people. They are not authors from a book I've never met they are people I know. I know their lifestyle, their sincerity. Matter of fact after watching (reading) you I would rather listen to them than anyone like you my friend. A person who feels he must build his case on the degredation of other peoples intellect. Wow. You must feel pretty small when no one's around; I mean when you've got no one to try to step on.
Let me say this as well: You're not saying anything Ben that YOU haven't heard a million times. I don't think that makes you weak. I heard a million times my teachers in school tell me that 1 + 1 = 2. Because someone else told me doesn't make it un-true.
Once you've answered at least this one question we can talk about the Bible. I would love to talk about the validity of God's Word!
' Don't mind if I do---Greg, you seem to be missing/ignoring an important point regarding these definitions and your newly found inquisitiveness about non-belief. Even IF a "weak" Atheist concedes that it cannot be known if a "God" exists---AGAIN, it does NOT automatically make the Christian biblegod into this Universal God, whom may, or may not exist. Greg, you cannot use "default" to prove your Jesus. I've told several different ways that Atheists--"weak" or "strong"--- can say with 100 % certainty that the Christian biblegod DOES NOT exist as a supernatural being. If Jesus existed as just a person?.. goody, Captain Kangeroo was a person too.
Greg, can you at least concede that a Universal God would be accepting of everyone? This is what "Universalists" claim---that there IS no "hell", that everybody is accepted. On the other hand, the Christian biblegod accepts only certain people---there are clear-cut conditions, and this blatantly shows that the X-ian biblegod is anything but objective..or UNIVERSAL.
"I heard a million times my teachers in school tell me that 1 + 1 = 2. Because someone else told me doesn't make it un-true."
And even if you've NEVER been told, 1 + 1 = 2 is still a "truth". No one's debating this.
"I would love to talk about the validity of God's Word!"
But we are debating this. It is NOT "valid", in a universal sense. Nice try, though.
We all learn from other people. That's not the point. The point is, that religion, and Christianity in particular, claims to be revealed knowledge, more-or-less straight from the mouth of God. However, it's not true. Everything is learned from other people, and that's all there is to it.
No matter how many times I've been told 1+1=2, that in itself would neither make the statement true or untrue. Verification would be required before complete acceptance of the idea could be achieved.
Now, for some reason you want us to accept the reality of your God. Personally I could care less whether you believe in a god or not, but you seemed determined to sell us on the idea that your god exists, and that it is something we should willingly accept. Okay, fine. So sell us. Please show us the merchandise. I gave you a reasonable condition: an amputee growing a new limb.
I, at least, am not trying to sell you anything. I don't care what you believe. You don't have to change. You don't have to reconsider. We didn't come to you, you came to us. If you are insistent on convincing us of the reality of your god, then give us some real evidence. I can clearly demonstrate that 1+1 does indeed equal 2. I cannot, however, clearly demonstrate that a god exists at all. Please show us how you've verified the existence of your god.
It is in deed a pleasure to talk to you. You seem to be level headed and your comments very well thought out. I am not really trying to sell my faith. To me that would be like selling ice to eskimos. You don't recognize the need for what I have to offer. What I am attempting to do was explain my faith, or for lack of a better word, defend it.
The entire reason I got on this site was because of some disparaging comments blanketly laid on all Christians because of one very bad apple. This bad apple (youth pastor) was a member of a church in my area (Atlanta). I know the people of this church, I have extended friends and family that attend there. They were devastated by this man's terrible lifestyle and mistakes. There's just no way that because one leader in the church is corrupt then the whole church is corrupt. I know that there have been and will be corrupt politicians and/or leaders but I don't believe they're all corrupt. I don't think the Great Ben represents you; you are both proclaimed atheists yet I feel as though you are reasonable and he is not. Should I think that all atheists are angry blow-hards because one is. NO I shouldn't. I don't think all white people are racists, I don't think all black people are thugs, I don't think all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, etc...
I don't think all Christians are non-intellectual; and I don't think all atheists are intellectual. I don't think all Christians have faith; I don't think all atheists serve logic.
I am a pastor of a small church and I hope and pray that as a leader I am not a hypocrite. I do think about that everyday and this site has helped me to focus more on my fruit.
Thanks
Greg Out
"I've told several different ways that Atheists--"weak" or "strong"--- can say with 100 % certainty that the Christian biblegod DOES NOT exist as a supernatural being."
Based on the very definition of logic how can you possibly KNOW 100% that the bibleGod does not exist. Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know that He is not God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know. I know you're smart but come on. You can not KNOW 100%. You are assuming BASED on what you KNOW that He's not God. Tomorrow you will learn something you didn't know and so will I. We used to know that the cell was the smallest fabric of life; yet everyday we learn it's not. What's smaller than the atom? We can't KNOW 100%. We assume based on the information we have. I read just the other day that they have removed Pluto as a planet. When I was in school I was taught the truth, the fact, that we had 9 planets and now we KNOW there's 8. WOW! What will we know in 10 years? What if what you know changes and that assumption is broken? Scientists used to KNOW the world was flat then Columbus and the like found it was not.
I risk attack by saying this but I don't even KNOW 100% that Jesus Christ is God! I take what I know and combine it with faith and get my belief. Jesus said to Thomas blessed are you because you believe by seeing but more blessed will they be who without seeing are willing to believe. (that is a Gregory paraphrase).
Thanks again.
PS are you a strong atheist or a weak a theist? Not one of you have answered this yet and I'm just curious. If you think there is an Universal God (even if it's not Jehovah) then you are NOT an atheist you are an agnostic.
Using the definition of logic---I can "know" it, precisely the same way that you can "know" that a square circle does not exist. It contradicts reality, that's how. It is an illogical concept, therefore not valid. Square/circle; natural/supernatural; omnipotent/omniscient.
Greg: "I read just the other day that they have removed Pluto as a planet. When I was in school I was taught the truth, the fact, that we had 9 planets and now we KNOW there's 8. WOW! What will we know in 10 years?"
We just had another Christian guest use this analogy the other day. It fails. Greg, in 10 years we may discover more planets based on the information taken in. Time will tell. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, however, there are some hypotheticals/concepts that will NEVER be true...i.e..."square circle". Science is open to change based on new information. On the other hand, religious convictions such as yours, are not subject to change---even in light of evidence to the contrary.(see below)
Greg: "Scientists used to KNOW the world was flat then Columbus and the like found it was not."
Yet, the bible---the "unchanging" word of a perfect "all-knowing god"---still says differently. Just like we "know" that there's no "firmament" seperating the water and sky. Just like we "know" the earth isn't geocentric.
Greg: "I risk attack by saying this but I don't even KNOW 100% that Jesus Christ is God!"
Redundant.
Greg: "PS are you a strong atheist or a weak a theist? Not one of you have answered this yet and I'm just curious. If you think there is an Universal God (even if it's not Jehovah) then you are NOT an atheist you are an agnostic."
In terms of a Universal force, or consciousness...I'm an Agnostic Athiest...or yes, "weak" Atheist. I don't know(Agnostic) if there is such a "God", but I don't have a belief(Atheist) that there is. Nor do I care, really. Notwithstanding, when it comes to personal gods, I am a hard Atheist.
Best regards.
It would be foolish to stereotype an entire population based on the behavior of one, but that's what people do all the time: all black people are lazy, all women are overly emotional, all atheists lack morals, etc. That kind of silly stereotyping is considered offensive because it is uncomplimentary, not because it is untrue. People rarely condemn complimentary stereotypes, no matter how exaggerated or falacious (e.g., All California women are beautiful; Princeton men make the best lovers; etc.).
Now, it is undoubtedly true that there are good and bad people everywhere. People possess varying degrees of education, perception, ability, opportunity... an endless list of differences exists between everyone on the planet.
But...
Christians claim to have the Holy Spirit of God inhabiting their very bodies, their minds, their spirits, molding them, changing them, leading them into all truth, mystically at one with them, convicting of sin, sanctifying, speaking with them, comforting them, supporting them, holding them up, carrying their burdens...
The list is nearly endless.
Yet, what do we see in reality? People — good, bad, smart, stupid, moral and immoral, just like everyone else on the earth.
I don't think logical thinking freethinkers are of more value or worth, or in any way better than Christians — as far as being people goes. People are people, that's all. What I resent, and would greatly disagree with, is that Christians are mystically better than anyone else.
Before you insert "Christians aren't better, just forgiven" in here, stop and think for a minute. The entire system of Christianity ultimately teaches that Christians are better than the rest of humanity. Christians are beloved of God and will spend a beautific heavenly eternity with HIM; everyone else can just go to hell.
Some Christians maintain an air of humbleness when it comes to this realization of thier purported loftier position in the scheme of eternity. But some Christians display an ugly air of smugness, especially when confronted by confident, strong unbelief in their magical stories.
Still don't agree that Christianity teaches Christians to see themselves as better than everyone else? Well, "the first will be last and that last first." This is nothing more than a formula for being first, and to be first is something most humans do enjoy.
I wonder how being congratulated for being the most humble would feel like.
Anyway, to speak more clearly, Christianity throughout history has given no indication of being lead by a supernatural being. Christianity is rife with all the same problems found thorughout society, in equal, if not larger, percentages. Stories about fallen Christian leaders, like your youth minister example, do not "prove" anything, but these types of stories, which hit the papers every week, do serve to provoke thought.
I started to call you Pastor Greg, because I knew you are a hard core fundy.
Let me tell you something Mr. Jeckle and Hide, you've got yourself into a postion that you are not qualified nor worthy to be in, yet you must bow to and appease your mindless followers, because you're leading them off a steep cliff.
You could not get out of your postion in any shape or form, without moving completely away so far away that no one cared who you were.
You've taken gifts and money and proclaim to represent an invisible myth, that you have no way of proving, nor any way of knowing yourself any of it is true.
People like you are sooo discusting, you'll get up in front of people with your hand taylored suits and big cadilac outside and tell about how Jesus suffered on the cross and you're there with your fat belly stuffed full of fried chicken and potato salad, woundering what is coming on TV after you get through counting your vain money.
You have absolutely no authority to represent a deity that claims to have been sent by a God, and you've not addrsssed one thing thatI have mentioned because you are a coward, you are a religious coward and you know it 100%. We know you're a blatant fraud, you don't deserve the air that you breath for misleading your wondering fools around like sheep, and you know they are fools too, just like you.
I do not see how you can look people in the face and tell them you are a preacher!!!!!
The good ole country boy self-appointed preacher.
You spread lies like mayonaise on a sandwich, and the thicker the lies the more money people are willing to give you, and you know this, you are a low lying snake.
You rob people's minds and then you rob people's pocketbooks, if there is a Jesus and a judgemental god, you haven't got a chance, they will say part from me, theif!!!
You are a theif in the grass, so go running back to your congregation because they refuse to see what a fraud you are, but I knew you were a fraud from day one.
Good riddance!!!!
You may think you have fooled your god and jesus, but you haven't fooled us one bit, you charlaton!!!
As for Paul, no one has invited you here, if you do not like what I have to say, then go somewhere were everyone tells you how wonderful you are because thats all you want to hear. You've have not said one thing worthy of a debate, you just want to hear sweet kind nothings and call that a debate, you're not prepared for bear either. Ben
This is exactly what Jesus had in mind anyway by his crucifixion, to elect someone to get up and tell them how wonderful that they are and keep their hard earned money and to sing gospel songs and have huge fine churches built and have fine choir robes made and electronic equipment and wireless microphones and have stained-glassed windows and shinny religious effigys and a big fine steeple on top, with a paved parking lot and the finest materials that money can buy, although Jesus died pennyless, he loves to see those mega-churches and all the fine dressing and papal dignity, with a partridge to comfy the pastor. Jesus supposedly died with nothing, and yet the preachers want money continuely want money, for their selfish greedy selves. Jesus would have loved to see the money grubbing preachers of today, don't ya think???
The church is a total mockery of what Jesus taught and represented, if Jesus was alive he would come back and destroy them all, along with the greedy money grubbing preachers!!!
Preachers and churches are a disgrace to Jesus and what Jesus taught.
Though I have read your post I do not understand still the reason you left Christ? I guess that is a question, it conserns me deeply because I don't understand how a person can believe something strongly one moment and than not at all some time later. (Please forgive and spelling errors and those of grammar as well; I truly speak english as my native language but the written version has always eluded me.) What I read in your testimony about your doubts about the bible and its story brought the following thought to mind:
What is the new testiment? It is a collections of testimonies by people who knew Christ or of people who knew people who knew Christ (luke). Christ did not write a single word that is located in the bible. A testimony is a story the word has come to mean a story about how somebody came to know Christ but all it is is a story. I can tell many stories of the works and power of Christ in my life though I have only known him for 3 years yet I know some folks who have known him for 30 years and can't seem to conjure a single story of grace or mercy not a single miracle do they describe and no stories of joy and peace. from these lips pour complaining, destruction and pain. Yet they know the one who could take all of these things away...this confuses me but it is not my story.
Yes I too have questions about the bible...the most recent is which of the disciples was Jesus talking about when he said that some of you standing here will not taste death until the kingdom of God has come? Didn't all of the disciples die...most of them horrible deaths? But I'm sure I will resolve this one has I have resolved all that have come before it. Any way I would like, if you could please, tell me, if you know, the exact thing that caused you to walk away?
Well, as my story was intended to communicate, it wasn't all that simple. But I guess I could sum it up for you by simply saying I finally realized that none of it was true. That's all.
Once I knew it wasn't true, I couldn't stay.
Do I smell a True Christian™ in the house?
lol.
it sounds like people turned you off to God, which is something I've realized to be too common. Christians need to represent the religion better sometimes. Here's hoping somebody else can bring you back. =)
People may have helped, but really it was the Bible and the history of Christianity that finished my faith. As long as you attend your happy-go-luck church, and sing your light praise songs, and listen to your Christian pop music, you'll never leave the faith. If you ever actually study how Christianity spread, developed, and changed over the last 19 centuries, well, it just might create some questions in your mind.
Most Christians are entirely ignorant of the degree of mutation Christian thought and theology has experienced since its beginnings. That realization helped me break the bonds of imagined Christian supernaturalism. Christianity is just another of the thousands of man-made religions.
Her dear Lord, to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end.
Though there be those that hate her.
False sons within her pale,
Against both foe and traitor
She ever shall prevail.
I have lost my easy God - the one whose name
I knew since childhood.
I knew his temper, his sullen outrage,
his ritual forgiveness.
I knew the strength of his arm, the sound
of his insistent voice.
His beard bristling, his lips full and red
with moisture at the moustache,
His eyes clear and piercing, too blue
to understand all,
His face too unwrinkled to feel my
child's pain.
He was a good God - so he told me -
a long suffering and manageable one.
I knelt at his feet and kissed them.
I felt the smooth countenance of his forgiveness.
I never told him how he frightened me,
How he followed me as a child,
When I played with friends or begged
for candy on Halloween.
He was a predictable God, I was the
unpredictable one.
He was unchanging, omnipotent, all-seeing,
I was volatile and helpless.
He taught me to thank him for the concern
which gave me no chance to breathe,
For the love which demanded only love in
return - and obedience.
He made pain sensible and patience possible
and the future foreseeable.
He, the mysterious, took all mystery away,
corroded my imagination,
Controlled the stars and would not let
them speak for themselves.
Now he haunts me seldom: some fierce
umbilical is broken,
I live with my own fragile hopes and
sudden rising despair.
Now I do not weep for my sins; I have
learned to love them.
And to know that they are the wounds that
make love real.
His face eludes me; his voice, with all
its pity, does not ring in my ear.
His maxims memorized in boyhood do not
make fruitless and pointless my experience.
I walk alone, but not so terrified as when
he held my hand.
I do not splash in the blood of his son
nor hear the crunch of nails or thorns
piercing protesting flesh.
I am a boy again - I whose boyhood was
turned to manhood in a brutal myth.
Now wine is only wine with drops that do
not taste of blood.
The bread I eat has too much pride for transubstantiation,
I, too - and together the bread and I embrace,
Each grateful to be what we are, each loving
from our own reality.
Now the bread is warm in my mouth and
I am warm in its mouth as well.
Now my easy God is gone - he knew too
much to be real,
He talked too much to listen, he knew
my words before I spoke.
But I knew his answers as well - computerized
and turned to dogma.
His stamp was on my soul, his law locked
cross-like on my heart,
His imperatives tattooed on my breast, his
aloofness canonized in ritual.
Now he is gone - my easy, stuffy God - God,
the father - master, the mother - whiner, the
Dull, whoring God who offered love bought
by an infant's fear.
Now the world is mine with all its pain and
warmth, with its every color and sound;
The setting sun is my priest with the ocean for it's alter.
The rising sun redeems me with rolling
waves warmed in its arms.
A dog barks and I weep to be alive, a
cat studies me and my job is boundless.
I lie on the grass and boy-like, search the sky.
The clouds do not turn to angels, the winds
do not whisper of heaven or hell.
Perhaps I have no God - what does it matter?
I have beauty and joy and transcending loneliness,
I have the beginning of love - as beautiful as it
is feeble - as free as it is human.
I have the mountains that whisper secrets
held before men could speak,
I have the oceans that belches life on
the beach and caresses it in the sand,
I have a friend who smiles when he sees
me, who weeps when he hears my pain,
I have a future of wonder.
I have no past - the steps have disappeared
the wind has blown them away.
I stand in the Heavens and on earth, I
feel the breeze in my hair,
I can drink to the North Star and shout
on a bar stool,
I can feel the teeth of a hangover, the
job of laziness,
The flush of my own rudeness, the surge of
my own ineptitude.
And I can know my own gentleness as well
my wonder, my nobility.
I sense the call of creation, I feel its
swelling in my hands.
I can lust and love, eat and drink, sleep
and rise,
But my easy God is gone - and in his stead
The mystery of loneliness and love!
© Copyright - James Kavanaugh
I found your website while searching for information on NDE as well as looking up info as to a discussion I am having on an Australian site at the moment as to Religion being the Bane of mankind.
I too was a Christian for many years, married a Baptist Ministers son, my brother-in-law also a minister, so you can possibly appreciate I got to see the ins and outs workings at the root...of that church at least. The hypocricies I experienced and witnesed while I was living my life "with the lord" were rampant, however at the time I did not speak to protest, as by my doing so, I would have gone against what I was told,or TAUGHT god wanted.
During this time, still a christian, I was involved in a car accident resulting in my "death". I had no "NDE". I had nothing. No "whitelight" warm 'n fuzzy moment with "god", nor a fire and brimstone "satan" experience. The only reason I knew I was been dead was because it was on my chart and the Hospital staff told me. I was constantly questioned by my inlaws as to "what happened when I met god" and when I said I didn't, they were mortified and actually TRIED to convince me I did, saying I had to for "him" to send me back, to fulfill "his" plan. They constantly kept giving me "suggestions" as to what might have happened, constantly going on about the bright white light, the warmth I MUST have felt etc etc etc.. The power of suggestion IS the most powerful thing I know of and because of their suggestion and their suggestion alone, I actually started believing what they TOLD me I saw. (being on morphine for pain at the time helped my own resolve weaken). I weakly, bought into it and they used me in sermons at the church as an "eye witness" to god and all his glory...(puke) recalling their own suggested "experience" as a "truth" and validation for their salvation sales pitch. This got me to look into NDE's as a whole and I noticed that ALL these god/satan "experiences" people have claimed to have, although some minor things altered, the main outcome was the same. For a God one : whitelight, warmth, "feeling of peace"..sunshine, lollipops, rainbows, everything. Where as the satan inspired ones were: Satan (always a caped or "sinister" figure, a lot of screams but no one actually screaming....heat as opposed to warmth... I could go on but I expect you know what I mean. Odd though isn't it, that never ONCE does anyone say that God looked weird and had 2 heads. Nor does anyone say that satan was an average looking guy sitting in a field of dandelions. On having researched this, I have come to the personal opinion that all these alleged NDE's people claim to have had, comes down simply to suggestion and expectation based on a taught concept. From early childhood, we, whether from religious families or not, are some way TAUGHT about the concept of god/satan/ good/evil heaven/hell. There is no middle of the road you are allowed or supposed to take, its either one or the other so CHOOSE.( I am speaking about western "christian" society here as I am an Australian, brought up in a colonised protestant belief backed nation) We are taught, even in public schools where up until recently religious instruction classes were a compulsory part of the curriculum, that god is good and if you follow him and his rules you will go to heaven living by his side for all eternity, but satan is bad and if you don't do gods will you will be cast to damnation forever. All of this is based on instilling fear into people. ALL NDE's where people claim to have these supernatural experiences, are based soley on a taught concept and the doctrine of good/evil, god/satan etc...
In cases of trauma, people usually go into a state of shock, where the bodyand mind as such actually shuts down to prevent us feeling the intensity of the pain associated with said trauma. We close down to whats actually happening around us, but that does not mean that the subconscious is still not working and all people whom have had the "supernatural" NDE's have all been CLINICALLY dead, meaning only their vitals are not responding to monitors for that time pretty much, but it doesn't mean that the subconscious has shut down, as the subconscious can not be read on a monitor. The subconscious. Where we keep all the things we don't necessarily want to deal with. The little part of us with that TAUGHT concept of fear always pulling at us. Now, through my research, I have found that those with the "whitelight" experiences, have lead what the individuals consider themselves as being basically a "GOOD" life (as determined by the taughtconcept good/bad - god/satan) where as those whom have committed crimes or feel in their subconscious that by the TAUGHT standard, they have been bad, always have the satan, screaming etc NDE experience.
I don't know if anyone reading this has seen the movie Ghost, but that is a perfect example of what I am trying to say, albiet clumsily..lol Referencing that movie also goes to show just HOW much this taught concept of fear IS instilled in us all.
I do hope that anyone who reads this understands what I am saying.
And Webmaster, Thank you SO much for creating this site and I fail to see the "concerned mothers" issue with it at all, unless of course she is also just as "terrified" with all the Pro christianity sites out there too and telling them to STOP as well. Otherwise she is as most christians are...hypocritical.
it sounds like people turned you off to God, which is something I've realized to be too common.
Even thought this comment was directed to the WM, I thought clearing up the misconceptions that its always for us to leave the cult because some Christian was not being "nice."
For me, the god concept turned me off. What I was told (brainwashed with) was that god is an all loving god and a protector. So a test was put before this god and she failed. Over the course of 18 yrs as a fundie, I came to the conclusion that 1) this god did not give a rat's ass or 2) this god is non-existing. I chose #2 which explained #1.
Annoy: Christians need to represent the religion better sometimes.
I went further and read the bible from cover to cover, read it's history, its past its present and it made me vomit. I am ashamed knowing that I was a part of it. I am content. My moral standards are much higher than what is written in it and what Christianity represents.
Annoy: Here's hoping somebody else can bring you back. =)
Do not waste your time (at least with me) to try and bring me back to the cult. It serves no purpose in my life. I have developed a healthy self-esteem after leaving that mind numbing religion. I was forced to look at myself, learnt new coping skills, instead of stuffing, with every breath, waiting for life to end. Now I define my own purpose. Now I want to live.
I am proud to be an unbeliever. I am proud to be an Atheist.
Take care
I've read your story and I must say it is great you to see your open minded approach and honest evaluations of your thoughts. This being said, I do believe God is greater than our senses can comprehend and that we have a spiritual side to us that cannot be measured either. I think we all want to be part of something greater than ourselves seeing that selfish living is a horrible alternative.
Anyway, I'll continue to check your site and see what your conclusions are in the future. I will pray for your continual honest search for the truth -- I cannot pretend to have all the answers, but God has made Himself real to me (as I see at times He has done this for you too).
All the best!
God has made himself "real". How original. I wonder though---yes, I wonder what the chronology of the events leading up to this was? I mean, did "God" reveal "Himself" to you, first?.. before you ever even heard of the word "God", or "Jesus"?... thus, "proving" his existance?.....OR, did someone reveal to you what God/Jesus actually is, first, and this concept sounded appealling to you, and THEN this "being" made itself "real" to you?
No, actually, I'm being facetious...I don't "wonder"---I know the answer. The answer, depending in which culture/religion you're born into---is that your Muhammad concept; your Jesus concept; your Buddha concept; your whatEVer concept....was revealed to you via other human beings, FIRST.
Nonetheless, I've always been curious as to what "God" looks like. And YES, "God" would HAVE TO HAVE physical attributes for anyone to say that "God" is "real" and/or that "God" is a "He".
So please--anyone who says that their god is "real", and is an absolute "Truth"---if you would, describe for us, in vivid detail, exactly what your "God" looks like. Example: Dark hair/ blonde hair? Green eyes/hazel eyes? 5'6"?...6'5"?...you get the picture.(BTW, this applies to you too, Vynette, if you see this)
This is a challenge that I continually offer, yet, no believer can ever provide such a description. But of course, there's a reason for that, isn't there?
It sounds like you have a lot of anger. There are lots of intangible things in life that cannot be "sensed", but nevertheless exist. I can see you've never touched/seen/tasted/heard/smelled your thoughts, but don't they exist?
Broaden your mind my friend. What are you so afraid of? Dave has honestly experienced something from God (as he mentioned himself in this testimony). Have you been steeped in atheism? Wouldn't you have been brought up in this and wouldn't this be "real" to you? I admire Dave's honest approach and that was all I was trying to say.
Should we all think like you? Please, remember that things that are seen are temporal, but the unseen is eternal.
Not the same BS, how do you know your parents love you? You cannnot feel love, blah, blah, blah!
Yes, almost all of us are angry with evangelist! Your god/religion is no more "TRUE" than the rest of the gods/religions that have existed or will exist!
We cannot prove that "a god" does not exist. However, there is more evidence that "your god" (that of the bible) does not exist than to say that it does exist! Therefore, we are EX-CHRISTIANS!
No, Dave believed he had experienced something from God, as he mentioned in this testimony. Believing he had experienced something from God is a far cry from actually having experienced anything tangible or real. Once I figured out that ecstatic, emotional and mystical religious experiences are not unique to Christianity, I did some personal research on the phenomena. Now I'm of the opinion that such experiences (even those I experienced) are triggered by some peoples’ natural brain chemistry coupled with an average susceptibility to suggestion.
Things that are seen are temporal, but the unseen is eternal.
Actually, everything is eternal. Haven’t you heard that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only changed? You, me, the computers we're staring at right now — nothing ever really ceases to exist at it's atomic level. The atoms and energy that comprise everything get recycled over and over again... forever.
So, the things that are seen are eternal and the unseen gods, devils, angels, and floating cube-shaped cities in the sky are only in the imagination of the temporary arrangement of atoms known as human beings.
Dear Steve,
Please pay close attention, and "remember" this: You are a believer in Christ. I am not a believer in Christ. And for the record, we're talking deities here, NOT "unseen emotions". Anyway, I go one step further in my non-belief and say that I have no belief in ANY "unseen" deity---and this would include deities such as Toth, Allah, Muhammad, Shazam, Isis.. and literally, THOUSANDS more. 'Funny thing is, is I bet you have no belief in any of those "other" deities as well, isn't that right? I will assume "yes", since the one deity that you DO believe in says to not have any "other" Gods before you. Since I can reasonably conclude that you don't believe in any of those other "unseen" deities---shall I come to your "cyber-space" and tell you to "Broaden your mind"???? Shall I tell you that, yes, those other God's are "real" because "the unseen is eternal"???
So no, I'm not "angry"...not in the sense that you implied it in your blanketed assumption---however, yes, I do get a bit pissey when Christians bumble and stumble their way into an EX-christian website, BTW, and minister to us about how our skepticism is "irrational", "close-minded", and a whole host of other "finger-pointing" adjectives.... when all along, they dismiss all other "unseen" deities FOR THE SAME GOD DAMNED REASONS WE DISMISS THEIRS!
Oh, I'm sorry...did that sound too angry? Tisk tisk! lol.
Look, you said your God is "real". Either offer objective evidence that the Christian bible God is "real", as you say, or kindly dismiss yourself from this conversation. Thanks.
After living some 50 years, I decided tell them just how I felt about religion and God and Jesus. I told them it was all a hoax and a scam and their jaws droped to the ground, they looked like Nazi prisoners boarding the train, I'll never forget that look, like total despair, it was like I had just run over their pet dog just for fun, for about 10 seconds.
And then the preaching broke loose about how Satan was in control of my life and I was headed str8 to hell, then their demeaner changed they suddenly became as slobbering revenous rabid wolves, I could see the hate and resentment boiling in their faces, I told them it's only a Belief, not a fact, oh no they would not accept that they had a belief, it was proven pure fact to them, in their minds.
From there after, they determined that anything I had to say carried no merrit, like I was beside myself and seperated from their imaginary world and doomed str8 to hell.
So needless to say, we no longer communicate with them, which is ok with me, but I know for sure that they socialize with their fundy croonies and they share their god speak between them which also condones and verifies their silly beliefs.
I would have never guessed that grown adults could act so childish and immature.
So this is a fair warning to you from which you already know, if you tell them you no longer believe the BS, they will excommunicate you from their lives, because you will be a threat to them, they are braind-ead in the mind fog of jebus.
And we have the same type of idiots trying to run this country. I do not know what it will take to wake Christians up, because they have submitted their very being and mind to jesus. By this, anything else outside of the bible is of Satan and his army of deceptive angels.
Good luck, but I know you're tired of hearing the self-righteous cliche's. TC
BTW, they said they will pray for me, see how frickin ridiculous? Like a slap in the face!
I just heard about the site today, and I just wanted to say that, in a weird way, i'm grateful it exists. I'm a Christian, and so naturally my hope would be that people wouldn't become "Ex-Christians." But since there are, I'm glad i can read your stories.
Take it slow, express doubts about certain issues. Become informed by reading as much as possible. There is a link to Recommended Books on the left side of the page.
How old are your children? I ask just to find out how long they have been exposed. It is natural for children to question the dogma. You can ease them out whenever they ask certain questions.
Your husband and the rest of your family will be less understanding. Again, go slow with your "coming out" and read so that you will be able to counter anything they throw at you.
Also, stick around, read the comments and ask questions.
We have exposed Oz and there is no magical deity behind the curtain!
I just found your site today. I laughed and cried. I was raised in church. Most of my life I would say I was a Christian, but over the last couple of years, I've had many doubts and questions. As I have examined the "truths" I have been taught, I found them terribly wanting. I know what I have always believed to be true is not and it's a relief, but I have never felt so alone. I haven't "come out" yet, but I know for integrity's sake I will have to eventually. You guys banter back and forth and it's fascinating and funny too, but how do you deal with the social aspect of losing your community; your family and friends? I know it's going to be major when I finally come clean. I don't even know how my husband will react or my kids...gosh, I hate to even think about it. Those of you who have left Christianity; how did all that work out?
Hi Barbie,
For me, my family accepted my decision, just as they accepted my decision to be "with" God initially. I do have to say though that my father has always been an atheist, but either way he still loved me and accepted me for what I CHOSE to believe at the time, with no critisism either way. My mother although having her own "christian" beliefs still supported me on my choice to be a non believer. Perhaps I am lucky on both counts that these people whom I love dearly accepted MY CHOICE either way with no question or judgement attached.
As for friends? Well, I had a lot of judgement from them, but those I associated with at the time LIVED by "the word" and they themselves judged me accordingly! lol How ironic! On reflection, it sort of reminds me of a Simpsons ep where Maude has been to Christian camp to learn how to be more judgemental! Any REAL friend will accept you for who you are regardless and if they don't then obviously conditions were attached with that friendship in the first place.
I doubt and hope that your husband and kids don't love and care for you on the condition that you are a Christian as Christianity as all religion is a taught concept. We are not born with bibles in our hands, or labels saying you are "THIS" or "THAT". We are just born and what we are thereafter is determined by a taught concept. With your kids, I have to say though you have been instumental in that taught concept, and as such it is also up to you to show them the alternatives.
Ruth
In fact, comments can be posted in a large number of places, and read by people all over the world.
Also, if you join the forums section of this site (notice the link toward the top center of the page that says "forums") you can post there too.
Have a great day!
The way books became part of the bible's canon is rather hard to follow, but the Third Council of Carthage and the Sixth Council of Carthage finalized the formal canon. There is not one shred of evidence that the apostles wrote the scrolls with their names appended, nor is there any evidence that they were in any way involved in binding any codex of any kind. To imply that the church took the advice of the apostles when deciding which ancient Aramaic writings to trust is just bizarre. The first indication that there was anything like a church was at least forty years after the time of the events listed in the gospels.
As for the continual harping of Pascal's Wager, it's true that if there was just one option (Christian God) to believe in, then the logical thing to do would be to believe in him. Just as Pascal said, what have you got to lose? Except, of course, that there's a billion different deities to choose from, so what happens if I bet on Zoroaster and it turns out that it was actually Kali all along? And, how does anyone turn off the critical thinking in their brain in order to accept something which they know to be logically implausible? One cannot get to blind faith through logic.
The study regarding PhDs having equivalent theist tendencies to the general population is interesting. It's also interesting that the members of the National Academy of Sciences are over 90% non-theists. It seems that the more people study and learn about science and the way the world actually functions, the less likely they are to believe in invisible friends. Too bad, since that turtle god sure looks neato.
Some fun places to read: God Hates Amputees, Richard Dawkins, or any of the Skeptic-related sites. Oh, and Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" is a fantastic CD.
It seems to me, if you will accept open criticism with no offense, that you were focusing WAY too much on theology and doctrine, rather than the true dogma agreed of of all churches: that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried and on the third day he rose again, forty days later he ascended into heaven where he sits at the Father's right hand, and he is coming back once more to judge the quick and the dead and the saints and man. THAT is what it is all about. Sure, we all have our own doctrine and criteria of living (who doesn't?), but as Christians we are to love and accept one another as diverse as we may be. Unfortunately, most Christians don't do this. In a letter/rap song written to Slim Shady by Christian rapper KJ-52, he states that "it's just too bad alot of Christians, all they do is hate on you, instead of dropping to their knees and taking time to paray for you"(Dear Slim, pt.2; album IT'S PRONOUNCED FIVE TWO)I'll be praying for you man whether of not you think there's a god up there listening or not. Well, there's just one more ting I've got to say. Hebrews 5:12-14 states that "12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
Have you had a child? If so, you very well know that if it were to eat meat while still a child it would kill it. Isn't this correct? I mean, it's been scientifically proven. The same is with a "newborn" Christian. You cannot search out heavy doctrine (including Dake) when you just become saved. Start with the "milk" of the Bible and work your way up.
Well, until next time, I'll be praying for you, and remember, only one God, one Truth, and only one Way.
"True dogma"? Virgin birth? Someone coming back from the dead after three days, and then getting whooshed up into the sky? Ah. This is obviously some strange new definition of "true" that I wasn't previously aware of.
And FYI, babies less than a year old *do* eat meat. But don't take my word for it -- Google "meat"+"baby food" and see for yourself.
This is Ex-Christian.net, not "NeverHeardOfChristianity.net". We read the magic book. We found it wanting. We rejected it.
BTW, many people (myself included) consider "I'll pray for you" to be extremely rude, if not an outright attack on our persons. Consider the prayers rejected as well.
FOR SOMETHING YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN YOU SURE HAVE GONE TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO TALK ABOUT NOT BELIEVING
>>
Yeah? I'm living proof that you're wrong. And if I'M wrong, then I dare you to demonstrate how I am wrong!! -Wes.
I mean, after all, lions DO have to eat.
Christians, the other white meat!
FOR SOMETHING YOU DON'T BELIEVE(EX-CHRISTIANS)IN, YOU SURE HAVE GONE TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO TALK ABOUT NON-BELIEF
anony wrote: "There is no such thing as an ex-Christian......You canbe anti but not ex"
Erm no... Like Wes I am also proof to the contrary. "ex" means former..
Sheesh...are they giving labotomies FREE with baptisms these days ANONY? :-)
Same goes for resurrection accounts. They made you an agnostic and they made Josh MacDowell a teist and a Christian.
Another thing is the baptism in the Holy Spirit. I got baptised at home praying to God. In my case, I wanted to keep on praying in my mother tongue but suddenly, as despite my intent, in the middle of the word spoken in my mother tonge, I started to speak fully fluently in a language I did not understand. I personally know many people who started to speak in tonges having never heard that such a phenomenon exists. No one told them about the baptism of the Holy Ghost or about the tongues, they got it on their own at home, and then went to other Christians and asked what on earth happened to them.
Then, healings. I personally experienced a couple of sudden, instant healings (severe stomachaches and one earache that continued for a few days before prayer). I prayed for my wife about her prolonged pain related to female problems and it was gone in 10 minutes without coming back again. I also prayed a couple of times about my mother in law and saw results in less than 1 minute. I personally know a couple of women healed of cancer, one women healed of sclerosis multiplex, and one girl that had been slowly dying for 7 years because of a tumor in the back part of her brain that got healed instantly and after 15 minutes she was up and dancing and she's still fine today (over 2 years have passed since then).
Finally, words of knowledge. I'm not a good one at that, but God did speak several times to me very precisely on a couple of subjects. When I was a young Christian God gave me book names and chapter numbers where to look for a thing I wanted to learn about, and there it was. God was telling me where to look for certain things I lost at home, and there they were, even in such strange places as a dust bin. God was giving me very precise and strange names of problems that other people had so that I could pray about them, and later I found out that these were existing words and actual problems.
And what about all those Bible prophecies which are so precise and detailed? details about Messiah, 69 weeks of Daniel to the death of Christ ending in 33AD or 40 AD, appearing of Messiah under the Roman Empire, emerging of an apostate Church in Rome, reemerging of the state of Israel, the war between EU and Asiatic Union which has not even emerged yet, full globalization of the world just before the Antichrist.
You're right to have doubts if they're well founded. If you believed for years and persisted and saw no obvious miracle, no obvious work of God. Many people get dissatisfied with religion. Jesus also didn't like religion. But God is God, and it would be strange if He did not wonders for you, cause I see His unexplainable wonders fairly often.
Your interpretation of reality, if it makes you FEEL good, well then, please hold on to it.
Your so-called prophecies are every bit as specific and accurate as Nostradamus' prophecies. Those rantings mean nothing for hundreds of years and then all the sudden someone says, "OH, THAT's WHAT THAT MEANT!!!"
Baloney.
Religious Zealots in every religion believe that some God is talking directly to them. Even the Laws of Hammurabi say "the god told me."
Big deal. The human mind is a complex machine, and everyone of us regularly carries on conversations with ourselves. If you want to believe that when you talk to yourself you are talking to a god, well, whatever. That's up to you.
Your Dispensational End Times doctrines you hinted at were invented just prior to the American Civil War. No Christian anywhere believed any of those doctrines 200 years ago. Sorry. Learn your history.
You're obviously an emotional, sensitive, young woman, so I'll be gentle. You're living in a fantasy world. As life's problems cross your path, you may find your religion a bit shallow and powerless.
For instance, healing stomach aches seems a bit easy to me for an almighty god. Is he good at clearing up rashes, too? The next time you see someone without an arm or a leg, pray to your GOD to regrow the limb. I'll wager he won't. And the reason he won't is because he can't, because HE DOESN'T EXIST.
And the next time you break a bone, or catch severe infection of any kind, or have any kind of severe health problem, just pray. Doctors are unnecessary when you have a pipeline to god, right?
Oh, is that so??? What subjects?....the side effects of guzzling mushroom tea? Schizophrenia? Which subjects?
Also, I'd be curious---and I bet many other people would be curious, as well---but what does the voice of "GOD" actually sound like? Firstly, it IS a "male" voice, right? Is it more akin to a bass voice?....you know, like James Earl Jones? Or a tenor?..more like Mel Gibson? Or is it a higher pitched voice, like Pee Wee Herman? And how about language---what language did "GOD" speak to you in? Hebrew? Italian? Southern French? Also, which direction was the voice coming from at the time? The sky? Your ceiling fan? Or did "GOD" speak through something?...like a TV, or a picture of the Mona Lisa?
Anonymous, you said God spoke "very precisely" to you, so we can expect a very "precise" description of this "conversation", right?
Thanks in advance, and we await your reply.
I am sorry for what the Church has done to you. I hope you do not blame God for what the Church has done.
I guess in all this, I must ask, what do you think of Jesus Christ? Looking at the Church and humanity, you must not have faith in religion whatsoever. I would have to agree with you there. Religion is a failure.
However, I am curious as to what you think of Jesus? How do you feel about Him?
Blake
Really, check it out.
Get this…you can meet Jesus online!!!
He must have been busy blogging someone else ‘cause when I tried to ask questions, all I got were links to text messages with the same old tired bible rubbish, and links to videos of Jesus. However, it seemed to have everything BUT Jesus videos. I don’t know who was filming Jesus at the time he walked the earth 2000 years ago, but that must have been some camera!
So instead, I tried “Prophets and Prophecies”. And Preston, you must be the most gullible person on earth if you think she is a prophet.
Here are her seven prophecies for 2007:
1) 2007 will be a year of success and fruitfulness
2) There will be Change, Change, Change (Boy, I am glad she narrowed that one down!!!)
3) It will be a year of covenant blessing
4) It will be a year of earth-shaking catastrophes
5) There will be walking on water, which, according to her means “Many will be called out of the “boat of comfort” into “arenas of risk” in 2007.
6) Bible faith will be challenged (NO! That’s never happened before. Must be prophetic!)
7) God’s media army is emerging
I am “really” impressed with this prophet…nothing like making broad, generalized, weasel-worded blather, and then getting the gullible to believe this prophetess have some supernatural connection with the almighty!
She even has a deliverance room, but it’s fraudulent, I went there and not one baby was being born.
Ms. King should be thankful they don't still stone false prophets.
He's busy having his face carved into trees in Jacksonville, Florida.
Please tell me why your God hates amputees. I mean, he will not help an amputee grow a new limb. He refuses to heal anyone with a missing arm or leg.
In fact, HE won't even heal a person with a missing little toe!
WOW.
GOD HATES AMPUTEES!
I have posted some other comments on your "plea to Christians" post and I have to admit that when I stumbled upon this site, I thought "what happened to this guy to make him an exchristian"
Now I am reading your testimony and let me ask you something -- in reading your testimony, I read that anytime you had a question about the things of God you always turned to another PERSON, or a book written by another PERSON. Have you ever thought about praying to God to answer your questions about HIM? I find that in my walk with God I have come across doubt at times and struggles - the last two years of my life I have felt just as confused and decided praying wouldn't help, but in my very lowest time when my brother had died and I was at rock bottom - had no guidance in my life, it was Jesus who guided me, I prayed and he answered, it was the best time of my life. Then, I had some personal issues in my marriage - purely spiritual- and strayed from my faith, figured God must hate me, I am a horrible person. All that did was send me right back to rock bottom, I then began to attend church again and found that I didn't feel the same as I once had, church wasn't the same, so I stopped attending and spent time alone with God, at home, studying His Word, asking him again for direction. And again he has answered my prayers, given me answers my pastor or pastor's wife couldn't, why? because they aren't God, they are a follower just like me. I went straight to Jesus for my answers and although, I have a ways to go, I know that the start in the right direction that I have made is not because some other person TOLD me I should pray, or TOLD me what God wanted from me, but because I sought God. Their words and advice can help me and books and study guides are just that guides, but for the answers for my life and my path in life, I need answsers from Jesus that I get through my personal relationship with Him through His Word and prayer.
Jen
By the way - describe to us exactly how Jesus talked to you? Was it a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside? Was it a voice in your head? Golden tablets? A command from god directly ordering you to slaughter neighboring cities and 'dash their little ones against the rocks" (as per your fucked up toilet paper bible)? Jen - you remind me of that rabid woman on Trading Spouses some time ago (google 'god warrior'). Sorry, Jen - but you need to bring some irrefutable hardcore evidence to this discussion before we consider you seriously. All you have spewed here is the same old chewed up garbage every other christian dumps here - nothing different whatsoever; so no, Jen, you're hardly unique, and guess what? No one gives a rat's ass about your delusions, your rants, your "answered prayers", so maybe you should reconsider posting here again in the future? By the way - I asked before on another thread - why did god get so pissed when the tower of babble was built? And do your reeally REALLY believe that insane story?? Careful now how you answer- this might further damage your credibility here! Or would it? -Wes
I understand what you are saying, and I've had those emotional times and feelings myself. My brother died in a car accident, and the peace I felt during that time was in marked contrast to the rest of my non-Christian relatives.
However, I would still feel the same peace, even though I am not a Christian. It's not my nature to become overly emotional about things. That's just the way I'm wired. And all the wonderful feelings of peace and tranquility I obtained through Christianity I still have. I only imagined that those feelings were being generated by my relationship with an invisible, immaterial deity. I now realize that every spiritual experience and feeling I or anyone else feels is generated in the mind. It is a function of the imagination. It is normal, but it is not evidence of a deity.
How do you know that you would have felt these feelings of peace without God? You stated that you grew up in Christ from the time you were a small child. How do you know that the feelings of peace and tranquility that you get now that you consider yourself an ex-christian isn't still God's grace upon you to remind you of the peace and tranquility he once gave you?
I can tell you this without Christ in my life, I have no tranquility. I had an abusive father, I have a mother who was so victimized that she can be verbally abusive at times, and has not been able to guide me into my adulthood. I found my guidance from Jesus. I went to others in Christ to get help, was too embarassd to tell my story, but when my brother died, I suddenly saw the breakdown of my family. All I had left that I could do was pray. I didn't depend on others in Christ to tell me what to pray or how to cope, I just prayed, and Jesus gave me a life of hope and peace. Throughout the last 3 years, I have been through some great struggles and turned to friends instead of prayer and you know where that got me? Deeper in sin. I said before I went back to church and it doesn't feel the same, I feel judged, because now I am divorced. But when I open my bible and read it, and pray and ask for forgiveness for MY mistakes, I am forgiven. For the first time in about 3 years, I feel like I have some hope and that began when I began to pray to God every day and not once a month. There are some self serving Christians out there, I have met them, but I won't let their example guide me. There are some Christians out there who have given me advice that doesn't line up with God's word, and again I don't follow them. I can say also that throughout all of my struggles, the one thing I wouldn't do was deny God, because I know that as sure as I am talking to you, I was talking to Him and when I asked for signs he gave them to me, I know He is real. I don't hate you for your choice of lifestyle, why? Because I don't believe God hates you. He does hate sinners, but as soon as you turn from the sin you are forgiven. He loves us enough to wait for us.
My last post on one your forums was responded with so much hatred and I felt attack against me personally, I won't be back, at least to that forum. I felt that in reading your testimony this would actually be a discussion, but I see I was wrong. I will pray for you and your site, that maybe you will again feel God's love one day and that all who come on here will at some point know Jesus.
One more thing, Rick, if you are truly an ex-christian, then why in your testimony do you still capitalize Christ, God, Jesus? If you truly don't believe, why show Him any respect?
Yours in Christ,
Jen
Thanks,
Jen
Anyway, I appreciate that you've had some problems to deal with, and religion has given you comfort.
As I said, if that gives you comfort, then please pursue it. Perhaps, one day, when the scars of your upbringing fade, you'll be in position to face life a bit more rationally.
Take care.
If you are alive by that time, i hope you will see and believe. Keep your minds open to the fact god could be real. Because so many prophesies are about this lifetime. I know The coming of jesus is coming this generation. So I ask you to be wise and keep comparing what's going on in the natural to the scriptures that ya'll know so well.
Just Don't dismiss god just yet. We're almost there
I stumbled across a website that has given me a much clearer and better insight and understanding to Christians and the Christian faith.
It's called A Christian Think Tank.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
I would assume you have probably done alot of research yourself on Christianity and so you have probably heard of it, but just if it interests you.
what kind of "signs" did you ask for and receive? I asked for plenty throughout my struggle with christianity and never got so much as one.
My final words
the Gate is narrow and also the path is narrow. Make sure you know the Lord. Try listening to Paul Washer at <BR/>Heartcrymissionary.com
listen to his YEC in alabama
I am roughly convinced that if you recieved your answers in satisfaction you would not turn back. "he that started a good work in you will finish it" DO YOU KNOW THE LORD. Many will say to me on that day Lord Lord (notice the signifigance of the double Lord) . . . and I will say to them depart from me I NEVER KNEW YOU. Quit looking for happiness. Quit looking for yourself. surrender yourself to the fierce fire that is God.
I wonder in all your readings for answers you have read any early church writings by the church fathers, such as John Chrysostom, Basil, Tertullian, Justin Martyr?
Mike
I thought "God's word" was "unchanging"? Or wait, it only changes when it changes?.. and it stays the same when it stays the same, right? Perfect.
Daniel: As for your current views with athiesm it's theology is far more faulty than the supposed ones in christianity
There is no "theology" in "Atheism". Learn your definitions before you spout off such non-sense.
Daniel: Athiesm by it's very nature makes no room for any kind of morality.
Utter bullshit. What is "right" and what is "wrong" is dictated by society, and/or, from culture to culture. "Right and wrong" is purely subjective. The bible says, in no uncertain terms, that we shouldn't work on the Sabbath, nor shall we allow our "slaves" to work on that day. Yet, how many theists are out stoning to death the people who work on sundays? And how many theists have slaves? How do we know it's "wrong" to kill people who work on sunday, and to keep slaves?? I mean, it's right there in "God's commandments". Yes, tell us more about your divine "morality".
Daniel: You must neither accept or reject any "idea" if you do then you are hinting to an absolute truth and then giving evidence for God.
Again, totally preposterous. CHRISTIANS can't even agree on what "absolute truth" is.
Daniel: As for the tree in the garden. that falls in with CHOICE every person must have a way to love or deny God to sin agains or glorify to be good or bad. Otherwise, if the coice(choice) is not there than the relationship and the love and the glory recieved is worthless.
You can still have "choices" without threats. Furthermore, if you want to talk about "worthless"...I would argue that any love received under threats and coersion is "worthless"...e.g....Jesus: "Love me.....or burn!"
Daniel: The tree served as that choice. Once man chose against God he fell.
You are talking about parables in a book of mythology. But I'll humor you: Mr. "Omnsicient" KNEW the outcome in the little garden story. God has no one to blame but himself. So he damned sure shouldn't be blaming me.
I am young like you were when you started doubting and am sensing that you are holding back something.
You are young? Now that's some astonishing disclosure. Thank you.
Mainly because you have switched to aitheism which is purely illogical.
Feel free to show me the "logic" in talking snakes; swimming hammers; a talking domestic ass; camping out inside a whale; unicorns; giants; witch doctors and talking vegetation. Then, using the scientific method, show me the "logic" and "science" in "creation". Waiting.
My final words
Promise?
the Gate is narrow and also the path is narrow. Make sure you know the Lord. Try listening to Paul Washer at <BR/>Heartcrymissionary.com
listen to his YEC in alabama
Try reading just one book that challenges your belief. I dare you.
I am roughly convinced that if you recieved your answers in satisfaction you would not turn back.
No shit? That's the whole point---the "answers" ARE UNsatisfactory.
Quit looking for happiness. Quit looking for yourself. surrender yourself to the fierce fire that is God.
Yikes...that's just plain scary.
Atheism has no "theology." Theology is the study of god.
"will say to them depart from me I NEVER KNEW YOU"
It always comes down to threats, doesn't it?
To Mike: Yes, I've read those men.
Question for Mike: Have you read anything critical of Christianity?
She doesn't understand it but she knows she was speaking it fluently. That's amazing.
Religion is just a belief system...isn't that what this is?
FOR THOSE THAT ARE TIRED, WEARY, AND LOOKING FOR "ANOTHER RELIGION" YOU'VE FOUND IT!
Cheers.
It's nice to meet yet another bitter Christian.
I want to ask you a few questions. Do you think newspapers are religions? Do you think magazines are religions? Do you have any idea how much time and money it takes to run a website like this? Do you so resent seeing opinions in opposition to your religion?
Though I have nothing to hide, and no reason to tell you anything, I will tell you this: No one is required to contribute a dime to this website at any time. There is no requirement for a tithe, no expectation of generosity, no plea of funds to "save the lost," no promise of "blessings" to those who do help out, no nothing. The people who do help this site stay online do it for only one reason: because they relate to the purpose of this site: encouraging ex-Christians.
Anonymous: Go back to your loving congregation of mind-numbed believers and give, give, give to support your pastor, your television minister's new Porsche, your idea that the poor starving Africans are finding an apartment in heaven, or whatever you think you are accomplishing by making your religious leaders rich.
Go.
Your bitter emotions are wasted here. I've heard stupid fundie ranting so many times since shedding the rotten skin of Christianity, I could puke.
I mean this in the nicest way.
May your loving, forgiving, and everlastingly fun god bless your defense of his poor, wounded honor.
If I look at your reply objectively, it looks as if I have struck a cord with this money thing.
Cheers.
Thanks.
God's kid
You seem generally a bit cynical when it comes to people.
Did it ever occur to you that people wrote the scrolls and manuscripts that were eventually combined into your Bible?
Since you say that people are have a tendency to be undependable, I find it striking that you completely trust the writers of your holy book.
You see, people wrote those words in your holy book, GK. No god penned them. You are trusting in people.
Donna
Also, I get the reason for the site. This site isn't advocating one way or another. It's basically someone saying "these were my experiences that left me distraught and offended and this is where I blow of steam, and possibly unite with others that feel the same way".
Anyways, off to lunch. Let the flaming begin!
Religion:
1. a: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.(American Heritage)[bold added]
Now, Chris, if you "stopped thinking in religious terms", then you stopped thinking in Christian terms. Christianity is a religion. Congratulations!......welcome to freedom!
Chris: If you believe in God, great! If you don't, great! The minute you want to push me one way or another, the minute I shove you back and it becomes a negative situation.
My initial thoughts are that someone here is being disingenuous. I guess I'll see how "great" it is that I don't believe in "Jesus", or any other god, when/if Chris comes back.
Chris: Also, I get the reason for the site.
Somehow, I don't think so, but just to be sure, the site's purpose/disclaimer is available.
Chris: This site isn't advocating one way or another.
It's "advocating" that Christianity is bunk.(in a nutshell)
Chris: It's basically someone saying "these were my experiences that left me distraught and offended and this is where I blow of steam, and possibly unite with others that(who) feel the same way.
(addendum)....and where I say that the Chrisitian biblegod doesn't exist".
Yup, you nailed it = )
While touting itself as the answer to man's ultimate questions, all it really does is enslave the mind.
If you are trying to say there are good people who happen to be Christians, well then I completely agree. If what you are trying to say is that because there are good people who are Christians that Christianity is true, then I disagree.
Every person who for one reason or another finds themselves captured by a religious cult, finds it very difficult to escape the clutches of that cult. If they ever do escape, they desperately need encouragement.
This site is for those who have escaped or are escaping from the cult known as Christianity.
Now do you get it?
---------------------------
MAN! AS AN EX-CHRISTIAN YOU MUST KNOW THAT CHRISTIANITY IS NOT FOR THE MIND BUT FOR THE SPIRIT. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD IT, DIDN´T YOU? REMEMBER: The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. REMEMBER ALSO THAT: Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. THE BODY!!!!
Martin Stoimenov
And me, I find study positively exhilarating rather than wearying. If it's wearing you down, you're studying the wrong things.
:)
I live in Mexico, so Mexico is everything. I´ve never seen Malaysia, so Malaysia is a state of mind, as well as most of the world. Most of the world is just a state of mind in my "physical" brain and was brought to me by a "physical" TV.
Martin Stoimenov
But, it is possible to travel to Malaysia and confirm its existence.
Do you have any evidence, outside the moldering volume of a Bronze Age holy book written by ignorant Middle Eastern peasants 1,900+ years ago, that an invisible spirit of any kind actually exists?
If so, I'm sure many here would greatly appreciate any light you could shed on this topic. So often, Christians admonish us to believe in all sorts of invisible supernatural things without evidence beyond, of course, their personal Christian beliefs or a few words read out of their holy book.
When asked for evidence, they usually say something like, "Well, can you see love?" It's a poor analogy because love is an emotion which is generated and resides solely in the brain. Emotional feelings are not supernatural, and because thoughts and emotions are virtually invisible, that in no way provides evidence that there are invisible supernatural entities flying about the "firmament."
Some more. There is no any prove that you exist. I don´t know you. I´ve never seen you and only because you´ve written some website it doesn´t make you real to me.
You don´t have to talk about love in order to prove that an invisable world exists. Every single day we recieve SMSs and e-mails and only because we can read them it doesn´t mean that they are true. May be they don´t exist. May be they are only an image in our physical brain, a picture from the past that we´d like to forget only because they don´t convey an info we like.
Martin Stoimenov
And therefore, God exists.
Martin, have a nice day.
If I don´t see it, it doesn´t exist.
If I don´t understand it, it´s something stupid.
If I don´t believe it, it´s a lie.
I saw the LIGHT! God doesn´t exist! Thank you, MAN!
Martin Stoimenov
I just found this site. I have a question that I can't seem to get out of my head. Where did all the stuff come from? Does the physical world that we see around us just exist eternally? Did something or someone create the stuff? What is the uncaused first cause? Is this an important question? Anyway, I am tired so off to bed I go. I look forward to seeing some thoughts on this subject.
Dee
Hey Mr. Webmaster it's great to see more sites like this popping up all over the place, keep up the good work ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/mithrastheprophet/forum/god-v-satan.png
The probability of life being made by chance (after a Big Bang) would be rarer than the probability of a Boeing 747 airplane being assembled by chance in mid-air after all of its parts were sucked up from the ground by the wind.
:)
Yet, here you are.
Hmm.
I guess people really do win the lottery.
Would you mind showing us how you computed the probability of life arising? I can think of a good many biochemists who would be fascinated to see the solution to that puzzle (since, currently, nobody else has a clue). Actually, I'd be curious just to hear a few of your assumptions.
I found your "anti-testimony" fascinating and I'm really glad you posted it here and created this site. Thanks.
It appears that after your various religious activities and large amount of studying and book reading you seem to conclude that people ("Christians") are NOT indwelt with the Holy Spirit (God). Therefore, following this conclusion it is understandable that you think Christianity is a fake and a lie.
Your "anti-testimony" explains your experiences that support the conclusion that people are not indwelt with the Spirit which I can also follow.
However (I guess this is the real reason I'm commenting), I'm confused at the difference in life experience between you and me. (I would go into my own life story, but it would take up a lot of room so I'll just summarize.) Basically, I'm a Christian yet I've seen in my life and in those around me the huge change (for the better) that God has done.
I agree that not all Christians are "good" or nice people and that not all non-Christians aren't nice (I've met several very caring and kind non-Christians).
I'm confused because it seems like you are an intelligent, logical person who has clearly given Christianity a try yet your conclusion that God does not indwell people is far different than mine. Having God as Lord and Savior never changed your life for the better? Did He really not do anything in your life?
This just amazes me because I've seen so many lives change, including my own for the better (These are life changes that are humanly impossible to achieve). I've seen angry people soften and selfish, career-driven people change be aware of others at cost to themselves.
So, if God really didn't impact people and indwell them (change them for the better) I would agree with you that Christianity is a lie. However, I've seen and witnessed far too many occurrences of God working in and changing people to ignore.
I'm sad and confused that our life experiences could produce such contrasting conclusions. Thanks for sharing your story though. I wish there were more Christians out there who thought and read as much as you.
You said, "These are life changes that are humanly impossible to achieve."
Exactly. The person who changes wants to change and does so. It has nothing to do with magic.
Dumbo thought he needed a magic feather to fly, but he eventually realized he could fly without the feather. His belief in the feather was silly.
Peace.
As a refugee from evangelical/charismatic Christianity myself, I find much that I can relate to in your account. I can also say that I did NOT leave the church behind because of how I was treated. I knew many kind, intelligent, sincere people in the various churces I have belonged to and visited. I was raised in an abusive home, and was able to break that cycle and do a better job wtih my own children, largely because of the positive influence and example of many fellow Christians.
I was never as ardent, or as inclined to evangelize, as you were in your youth. I was brought to church by my parents, and kept there by my first husband. After my divorce, I started attending a less fundamentalist church, but even there -- it was the cognitive dissonance that I could no longer bear. Too many of the church's teachings, on too many subjects, just stopped making sense to me. I'm not quite an atheist, perhaps I am an agnostic. I have read quite a bit of buddhist thought lately, but I'm not totally committed to that either.
Thanks for sharing your story. I look forward to reading more of it. And perhaps I will soon get back to my own blog and share more of my own. :)
keith
First of all sorry for my bad english I am from Croatia.
***
This site has an interesting view. I think of myself as a free thinker but i would like to tell you one thing my friend and that is: "Religion is fear but faith is love". People always need to have faith in other people, don't loose faith. Religion is just corporative approach in using faith for gaining ego... Please do not think as this all bad (christianity). All people are natively good and want to make theirselves and other around them feel good. We as a people of this small world need to grow up beyond differences and join together to make this world worth living. No matter if you are christian, baptist, buddhist or islamist... Follow the way of love and help other people.
***
To provocated christians:
Religion is bad cause people are making it like that. As an ex-christian i can say that religion does not save you but people often search for an excuse so misuse religion for that. If i kill in the name of god or i go to church in the name of god would i be true follower or just someone who is searching for love in the wrong way? I ask you why do we need gods commands? Why do we need "gods" rules? IF we live by rules of love and understanding noone would be exchristian or christian. If you were in true understanding of your religion things like this site would not bother you. If catholic church encourages people to believe why wouldn't someone encourage them not to believe? I ask you again who is more right the one who asks to believe or the one who asks not to believe???
In fact, I was part of several of the cults that call themselves Christianity.
First, I get a code. Then I type in the secret word.
You get no comment because it apparently isn't God's will.
Every real disciple should have God Himself as his teacher and yet find the same truth. If you don't believe this then isn't God playing games with you that some "expert" on Him is all you can find?
There are many who are called but not chosen and think they know God but don't. Which one did you like best?
I think a person has to want to follow and worship a righteous King as God first.. if He exists. This is the kind of beginning point. If a person is happy without God, then they likely will not be sincerely seeking Him (though they may enjoy reading supposedly intellectual writings about "God" by writers whose real motivation is to exalt themselves by supposing they know God).
Since God is a King, He won't be bossed around giving out answers or even answering period unless a person sincerely wants to cooperate in His righteous plan and be respectful.
Most men are happy being their own god... no matter if the combined result in the world is kind of mediocre.
Follow a king? Worship a king? What in blazes for? My current country of residence has an honest-to-goodness queen who seems to be a nice enough lady. I know she exists; I've seen her on TV and heard her voice on the radio. But... Follow? Worship? No, no, a thousand times no. She isn't going anywhere I'd care to follow (and neither is anyone else, god -or- mortal).
I'm especially underwhelmed by the absentee-landlord Biblical god Yahweh, whose alleged actions on Earth are so random as to be statistically indistinguishable from chance occurrences.
As for gods-as-teachers, riddle me this: With literally thousands of versions of Christianity out there, and multiple versions of "the truth", what makes you think that anyone got the real deal?
This isn't "a god." This is the God that created and runs the cosmos.
There is little reason to believe that multiple gods of different personalities created or run it since they would long ago have begun arguing and let the whole thing go to pot. Also, the universe is really quite up to date after all these trillions of years, so God is obviously infinitely more with it than, say, the General Motors management.
If you believe it runs itself (the universe) then you probably might conclude the same thing about General Motors ( and of course the employees would agree with this assessment though we know better).
So far as which of all the forms of Christianity to believe... here's my experience.
I chucked the whole thing as a teenager after not getting answers to my questions. I was a Lutheran.
However, in my heart and mind I knew I would follow God as King if He is who He is in the bible and if He exists.
I supposed there might be a God, but if so He wasn't answering questions. He had given us death, which doesn't seem too great when He doesn't seem to have anyone around with answers to questions such as what happens after death; not convincing answers anyway. So I recognized the need for a loving Father God and wished we had souls that lived on, but it seemed too good to be true... must be a fairy tale.
And if one only gets to heaven through Jesus, then what about the man that died in India 5000 years ago that never heard of Jesus?
I went about my business and stopped looking for God or "believing in Him."
Then I had an experience where all my questions were answered about everything I could think of as fast as I could think of the questions.
It turns out there is a state of mind or communion with God wherein we are not seperated from the truth and the answers. If we were with God and holy we would be in this state of mind of communion and answers to questions all the time.
I wasn't looking for God at the time, but God knew my heart and reached me.
So, on the one hand, when you say you wouldn't want to follow a King, it indicates you aren't ready to respect one and so He knows your heart and unless He chooses to work on you, you will presumably continue to live your life without Him. This is, however, the real reason for you not knowing Him; it is not the myriad pontifications and denominations of men that you should claim for your reason for not seeking Him. He is able to reach a person personally if they sincerely want a righteous, holy God.
The queen you are discussing is not holy or righteous, unless she is by her relationship with Christ, if she has one. Following her is not at all the same as following God.
So far as the man who died in India 5000 years ago, he was judged by how he responded to his conscience and what he could see of the nature of God in nature (this is written in scripture and is logical).
Not knowing Christ,His judgment would have been that he came back here again to live another life as who he had become in the last life by everything he did which made him who he was by the point of death, judgment and rebirth, or he could have been denied another existence here by God and sent to hell if he deserved it (if you don't believe in hell, you must be niave because there are people who live in hell right here on earth).
Anyway, it turns out there aren't significant problems with the bible for me, just the overlay men had put on it, which makes it very hard to see it for what it really says.
Still, no problem, God is available with answers for those who humbly and sincerely seek the truth and a King because He has so prepared them. In my case, part of the preparation was demanding real answers that make sense.
If anything I said doesn't make sense, I will try to expand on it or clarify it if you request
Prove it. (And not by using the Bible, either... Not admissible as evidence here.) I see no reason to believe that such a being exists outside the imaginations of humans.
And there is certainly no evidence thus far that points to (and only to) the god of the Judeo-Christian mythological books.
"So far as which of all the forms of Christianity to believe... here's my experience."
Your subjective experiences are insufficient as evidence. I am not living life through your eyes, but through Mine. Your fantasies are not "truth" to Me.
What I did see in your testimony, however, is a fear of your own mortality and a craving for a father figure. And I think that you convinced yourself by looking for 'signs' that confirmed what you already wanted desperately to believe.
My needs are different from yours. Very different. I'm comfortable with the concept of death and, being an adult, am not looking for "Dad" to tell me what to do.
"It turns out there is a state of mind or communion with God wherein we are not seperated from the truth and the answers."
Exceedingly common "mystical" experience. Happens in all cultures. Advanced students of meditation (all styles) regularly give similar reports -- Read Ken Wilber's Transformations of Consciousness for an in-depth look at the salient features of the phenomenon.
And such an experience doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Bible (or any other religious book), or with supernatural god-beings, either. I suspect it was "merely" your own mind in a particularly lucid and focused state.
"So, on the one hand, when you say you wouldn't want to follow a King, it indicates you aren't ready to respect one... And unless He chooses to work on you..."
Ah, so much for that 'free will' shit. So your pet god regularly fucks with random human minds to get people to believe it exists? I am sooo not impressed.
"The queen you are discussing is not holy or righteous..."
(picks up very heavy gauntlet) *slap!* Hey. No one disses Betty Windsor on My watch, kid.
"...he could have been denied another existence here by God and sent to hell if he deserved it..."
NO ONE deserves Hell.
No one.
Not even your mythical devil.
If you believe otherwise, you are one sorry and deluded little bastard, and I hope you simply wake up one morning and discard your religion because it no longer makes any fucking sense to you.
Before I even saw Astreja's thoughts, I also picked up on your fear of mortality, as well as your strong need for a father figure; which this god IN YOUR MIND, provides you with both.
Your justifications that try to prove to us that YOUR god should be our god to, have about as much credibility to them, as any other lame fundie argument we've seen thus far on this site.
All your proof lies within your own deluded mind and no place else.
Your reasoning ability is just a wee bit skewed and out of kilter, but a sick mind doesn't always know it's in need of repair (e.g. patients that are having strokes don't know it many times).
Your mind needs to worship this god because of your own selfish needs for immortality and that mystical father figure to protect and guide you. So you, like all xtians do, form god in the image they wish to see him as and cherry pick qualities of the bible to support that specfic image.
>"I wasn't looking for God at the time, but God knew my heart and reached me"
Again I agree with Astreja here. This is quite scary in fact.
So your version of this god being, goes around touching people with his mind at random, which of course takes away the free will that most xtians proclaim we all have.
This is on par with how god hardened the pharaoh's heart ON PURPOSE so he wouldn't let Moses's people go too soon (and wreck the length of the 4 hour movie).
Sure seems that your god likes to interfere with the thought processes of the human he created.
Thank goodness my mind has a force field wrapped around it that repels such conjured up gods.
I wonder if those extinct WoolyMammoths, had an equal talent for making up gods to worship in their primitive minds. If so, their god had the same amount of proof that your does...NONE.
You really do need to put aside your emotions that prove your god to you and try and use some reasoning ability to see your god never existed.
Your emotional needs have created this god in your mind, but his reality stops where your skull ends.
ATF
If you don't think creation, or "nature" as you might like to put it without recognizing God, or mathematics, or any other of God's beautiful creations "proves" God's existence then you logically believe a Rembrandt painted itself.
Now leave it to you to tell me who is logical.
Atheism requires a lot of faith.... I think you should prove that God doesn't exist... what evidence do you have(your grievances with God don't prove He doesn't exist).
Dead wrong. It is totally necessary. When a child believes he or she has an invisible friend, okay, sure....'harmless. On the other hand, when full grown adults commence to blowing each other up, even as we speak, over which invisible "friend" to worship, then YES, it becomes necessary to find evidence for, and identify, their alleged "friend"...i.e.. "God". When personal beliefs(yours) become collective beliefs, and those beliefs encroach upon my freedom and/or threaten my well being, then you'd better be able to validate the source, pal. That is the way it works.
Xian Fleece: If you don't think creation, or "nature" as you might like to put it without recognizing God, or mathematics, or any other of God's beautiful creations "proves" God's existence then you logically believe a Rembrandt painted itself.
Firstly, most Atheists I know are in awe of "nature". I, personally, don't need to know the source of nature, nor presuppose that it even needs a source, to be in awe of nature.' Follow? However, unlike you, the "lookist", I'm fully aware that nature can be just as ugly and deadly, as it can be "beautiful". In other words, if "God is like a icecream cone on a hot summer's day"....then to be objectively fair, "God is like a killing machine when a tsunami takes out 20,000 human beings". Of course, I wouldn't expect you to have a clue what the word "objective" means.
Secondly, if nature, in deed, has a source, then whoopty-shit. Who says it's not a non-personal indifferent impartial source? Who says it's a personal "being" flying around the universe in a tizzy over if a man has foreskin on his penis, or if they like to eat shellfish? Who says?..yoU? WHERE is your evidence?
Thirdly, your tired old apologetic, "painting needs a painter" analogy fails miserably, just like it always will. For one, I can waltz right down to the Ringling School of Art and witness painters in action, "creating" paintings. Secondly, you are comparing apples and oranges, to begin with---you are comparing nature, itself, to something that doesn't occur in nature.
Xian Fleece: Now leave it to you to tell me who is logical.
Oh?... you're leaving it to me? Okay, then I say that NOT believing in something; NOT spending a good portion of your life trying to please that somthing---something for which there is NO evidence...is logical. 'Hope that helps = )
Xian Fleece finishes with: Atheism requires a lot of faith.... I think you should prove that God doesn't exist... what evidence do you have(your grievances with God don't prove He doesn't exist).
WRONG again. Non-belief requires zero "faith". Do you have "faith" that Poseiden doesn't exist? How about the Almighty Allah? I think you should "prove" that every god you deny doesn't exist. Can you? Of course not...so what, then? Those deities exist because you cannot prove they don't? I'd advise you to not attempt that moronic argument if you should happen to challenge Atheists elsewhere.
- http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/theonusofpro...
"Waaaaaaaahh waaaaaaah waaaaaaah, you've shown us up to be a bunch of fools!! those evil people from the past aren't true christans WAAAAAH WAAAH WAAH!!!"
You are only to be congratulated mr Webmaster, your work will go down in history as some of the most important free-thought and hence liberation known in the 20th-21st century..
I can just imagine or descendents now...
Descendent#1:"Hey did you know that people believed in an invisible sky man who watched and judged everything you did?"
Descendent#2:"Yeah but that was before the internet and the age of electronic enlightenment...the internet was like the global library of alexandria in it's heyday;)"
Christianity is nothing but a psychopathic death cult and ALL its followers are neurotic to SOME degree...how else can we explain a belief in something that isn't there?
At minimum there are individual Christians who are not dangerous.
Sure, you can think of a smart-alec answer to anything.
By the same logic some of you use, atheists are dangerous because Communist atheists slaughtered millions of people in Russia and other countries.
You know, it doesn't take too much thinking to expose the lack of fair thinking in some of what is being said here.
There is an emotionally charged hostility here sometimes which might be the counterpart in an atheist cult to emotionally charged "love" or positive emotions in a pseudo-Christian cult.
I could easily find a rationale for blaming atheists for all the problems in the world.
Anyway, the form of cultic atheism which some of you have chosen to believe in, though quite a widespread and scholastically supported cult, never-the-less has a lot of the allure and ego-appeal that most other cults have. Why not find several listings of the nature of cults and see if you have unknowingly found your next one?
I have no intention of playing fair.
I detest Christianity. It's a millstone tied around the neck of millions of people... A mind-fuck that has them shaming themselves, confessing unworthiness to a hypothetical invisible being who doesn't do squat to help this planet.
The problems of this world will not be solved by people who consider themselves to be less than dirt. What we need is strong, mentally stable individuals who know that they're good enough to sit down and come up with correct answers.
The violence of this world will not be reduced or resolved by us-or-them religions. Such cults, including (but not limited to) Christianity and Islam, see enemies on all sides and long for eschatological catastrophes such as the Apocalypse.
The future of humanity is at stake. Christianity is a liability to that future.
For you who are so concerned about Christianity being dangerous, aren't you using monolithic thinking?
I didn't finger Christianity, specifically, did I? Let's review together:
"When a child believes he or she has an invisible friend, okay, sure....'harmless. On the other hand, when full grown adults commence to blowing each other up, even as we speak, over which invisible 'friend' to worship, then YES, it becomes necessary to find evidence for, and identify, their alleged "friend"...i.e..'God'."
To be crystal clear---"full grown adults" was intended to mean adherents of ANY religion; I mean ANY religion that either, explicitly, or implicitly, condones/promotes the killing of opposing religionists. That would include Christianity, and Islam, and "God's Chosen". If you want to say that I'm thinking monolithically in terms of slaughtering in the name of "faith" being a bad thing?... 'so be it---I accept that "charge".
Wool': At minimum there are individual Christians who are not dangerous.
True---and further still, wouldn't you agree that those individuals don't likely need to keep a bible on their night stands to "not" be "dangerous"? Be honest. In other words, if they're good, compassionate, and peaceful people as moderate religionists, chances are, they'd be the same without religion at all, therefore, they wouldn't need to be proponents of the same doctrine that enable the extremists.
Wool': Sure, you can think of a smart-alec answer to anything.
Yup, all day...until you stop giving me the material.
Wool': By the same logic some of you use, atheists are dangerous because Communist atheists slaughtered millions of people in Russia and other countries.
I didn't bring up the past, did I? Nonetheless, you attack a straw man. Communism is/was a political movement. There is no Atheist doctrine that says all adherents must kill in the name of communism. Communism and godlessness are not mutually inclusive. Click here. Furthermore, how many wars are taking place as we speak, in the name of "no god"?
Wool': You know, it doesn't take too much thinking to expose the lack of fair thinking in some of what is being said here.
It apparently takes more thinking than what you have, because to my understanding, if you're here to campaigne that Christianity is the one and only Universal Truth, you've fallen way short. 'Got anything better?
Wool': There is an emotionally charged hostility here sometimes which might be the counterpart in an atheist cult to emotionally charged "love" or positive emotions in a pseudo-Christian cult
Tit-for-tat? That's the best you' got? Nonetheless, where's our cult leader? Where's our doctrine? Where's our symbolic blood sacrifice? Hey...where's our golden execution apparatus necklaces? Hmmm?
Wool': I could easily find a rationale for blaming atheists for all the problems in the world.
Sure you could---just like you could blame "evil" on a horned man-angel in a red leotard who lives in the center of the earth. BOO!
Grammar aside, let's take a look at the "logic" of this argument. WD claims that failing to attribute the creation of "nature" to "god" is equivalent to failing to attribute the creation of a painting to a painter. Let's see if this stands up. (I think I already know what's going to happen, but I won't give it away.)
As this is an argument by analogy, the whole thing stands or falls on aptness; that is, how close the parallel is between the two scenarios. WB claims that the parallel is so close that one cannot possibly accept (reject) one without accepting (rejecting) the other. Presumably, this is what WB meant by being "logical". So far so good, WD?
Let's start with a painting. We've all seen how they are made. A human dabs a brush into various paints and applies it to a canvas. We've never seen something that looks like a painting that was NOT done in this way. Hence, we have plenty of positive examples of painters creating paintings, and not a single negative example. Inductively speaking, we're therefore on solid ground when we assume a painter whenever we see a painting.
Now WD asserts that "nature" is so similar to a painting that it MUST share the attribute of having a creator (not a human creator of course, but a magical invisible being). Let's try to see why this must be. As WD gave no indication as to why this one particular attribute must carry over from paintings to nature, we'll need to guess why it must be so. Is it true, for example, that ANYTHING that is true of the painting must also be true of "nature"? Well, no. We cannot conclude that "nature" is nearly flat, or made of canvas and paint, or created by a human, or has a mass of less than a ton, or has no moving parts, or can be wadded into a little ball by a human, etc. etc. In fact, there's very little we can say about a painting that is also true of nature. NEVERTHELESS, WD claims that this ONE special attribute actually does carry over from the painting to nature; that somebody or something "created" it. And why is this again? Presumably because paintings and nature are SO SIMILAR; no other reason.
To sum up:
1) we've plenty of examples to cite when claiming a painter created a painting, but not ONE when it comes to universes or nature.
2) Nature is not very much like a painting, so there are countless things that are true of one and not the other.
3) The only reason to suspect that nature and paintings share the attribute of having a creator is a loose (and very poor) analogy.
So, the "logic" didn't fare too well. Perhaps you would like to try another example, or attempt to refine this one.
WD later said "I could easily find a rationale for blaming atheists for all the problems in the world."
Of course you could! Coming up with rationale is child's play. The question is whether that rationale would stand up to scrutiny. I very much doubt that it would. But don't let me stop you; give it a go if you like.
WD also said "Anyway, the form of cultic atheism which some of you have chosen to believe in,..."
To the religionist, all is religion. Atheism generally stems from skepticism; the demand for warranted belief. That's not only the antithesis of a cult, it's just about the only ticket out of a cult.
I didn't agree with most of Dirty Jim's (I mean that affectionately) reasoning.
I do think Karen wrote some beautiful stuff and Fist has it right when he says loving each other whatever religion you are or not... can't knock it when someone helps you out.... I'm not saying atheists or Islamists or whatever are all bad... can't knock it when they are there to help you.
Om the other hand, there are unsavory types operating under any name. Stuff it in your ear.
The "unsavory types" argument for the existence of God:
1) Some Atheist's comments are unsavory.
2) Therefore, God exists.
3) Therefore, Jesus is Lord.
That and $2.50 will get you a Frappuccino at Starbucks. Feel free to poke holes in what I said. We'll see if your reasoning holds up. Okay?
Wool, if this is true, the world is (pardon my french) fucked.
As soon as you pick religion as the touchstone of reality, then we have to start discussing how one can demonstrate the correctness of one religion over another when different religions disagree.
-Wilson Heydt
I had a response to your reasoning behind why a painting is not a good analogy to creation or nature. I erased the whole thing because I thought the primary motives on the site are more along the lines of Huck Finn demonstrating his independence.
Since then I read Anonymous's long posting about mid-way up the scroll button margin about the origin of scripture, which I kind of liked, because it basically said the disciples taught it and then handed it around once somebody wrote it down and it got copied and passed down like any popular and valued writing might. I would add that the personality of God, or for you, the imaginary being, is evident in all the books that are in the bible. Here is where you might say, "ya, and He was this and that." I see consistency in the Being despite the fact that records of Him or "the postulated subject god" are gathered from a number of sources.
This doesn't "prove" anything, but it would be a tip-off that the subject god was manufactured if the various authors making the god up were not constistent over time about the exact nature and character of the being.
But, anyway, let me read your objections to the painting/creation or nature analogy again.
Well, that is the reason for the example of the painting; the fact that noone has seen God create.
Now as to whether a painting is enough like nature to posit a relationship between nature and creator such as exists between painting and painter:
A painting and nature are certainly different. How about, there is too much complexity in application of materials for either to likely be the result of random incident or forces. I would say that the screw on the back of the painting is a dead give away and any human, be it Jim Lehrer or Einstein, is the equivalent in creation of the screw on the back of the painting.
We also have complexities in time involving the chances of entropy occuring before material complexities would have a chance to develop, in the case of creation/nature. I guess entropy is not a factor in a painting. The complexities of the painting, however, point to application of materials with a desired result rather than by random chance, even without observation of an artist painting it. Of course, the missing factor in nature is that noone saw the creator create creation/nature, but that is the reason for the analogy, to convey that a large likelihood, or by mathematics, a certainty that all of the complexity cannot happen and maintain in order without entropy over vast lengths of time without intelligence behind it.
I am not saying, of course, "Oh, here's the paragraph that proves a creator." I understand that that might be what some are looking for.... maybe it is a matter of degree.... a paragraph that would satisfy and thus "prove" a creator to the logic of one person would not satisfy another. The fact that noone saw God/imaginary being create does not mean that we cannot intelligently infer and reduce to a certainty with mathematics that intelligent design is behind the universe.
I just more fully appreciated your notion that no attempt at logic at all is worthy of a Frappucino at Starbucks.
You noted that it would be a brick wall if indeed, "the trick is that the spiritual can't be proved by empirical observation of the material by definition of the terms" is true.
I'm thinking the trick to this statement is the question, "Why are you attempting to empirically observe what is readily obvious once it has been ascertained that no nature/creator in a body has ever been observed?"
If for the reasons I stated, possibly inadequately, in the above post, there must be a creator, then the creator must exist on a spiritual level defined as one that is not observable from the frequency level our eyes and ears are attuned to. This because the group experience of mankind is that noone has ever seen the creator wih eyes or ears and lived.
On that you have my whole-hearted agreement! Now, do you believe the ghastly capricious being depicted in the OT is identical to the generally benign character of Jesus? Is stoning disobedient children, or sacking entire communities consistent with the person of Jesus as you conceive him? I can think of few books as psychotically disjointed as the Bible. But, point well taken.
WD paraphrased my point #1 as "...there are plenty of examples of artists seen painting paintings but none of God creating a universe."
No, you missed the vital point. We have no examples of anything being "created" or "designed" IN NATURE, whether by a god or otherwise. The entire category of "natural" phenomena is without a single verifiable example of something having been created or designed. Thus, there is no way to test any inference about such. If you claim that an amoeba was "designed", there is no observation or experiment that one can perform to check that claim (Behe, Dempski, and Denton no withstanding). Thus, any analogy you employ to hop from the category of human artifacts to that of natural phenomena is wholly without support.
WD: "...there is too much complexity in application of materials for either to likely be the result of random incident or forces."
I agree. "Complex" structures and processes are (in general) not the result of randomness. If you think that anybody is arguing otherwise, then you are attacking a straw man. Life, for example, is the antithesis of randomness, as is the molecular machinery that comprises it. However, non-random is NOT identical with "designed". We have plenty of examples of the spontaneous creation of order out of seeming chaos. This happens continually at the molecular level as molecules self-assemble (and, no, this not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than crystal formation is). But more importantly, life is subjected to continual feedback from the environment, which is not random at all--it's highly correlated with the structure of the organism; feedback is effectively the opposite of randomness. What we see in nature, at the macroscopic scale, is not random at any scale except the atomic scale. Non-random does NOT equal "designed".
Let me turn your analogy around and use it to make my point. The painter does not first decide what picture she wishes to paint, and then applies a precise sequence of strokes to create the pre-conceived image. Rather, she will continually assess how the picture is developing, experiment, and happily accept random flourishes if they produce something "good". The painting she ends up with may be vastly different from what she originally imagined. There is a complex feedback loop between the painter and the painting. While there is indeed some randomness within each brush stroke (for the painter cannot perfectly anticipate how each hair in the brush will behave), the overall process is NOT random, even though the path ultimately taken may not have been anticipated at all.
That is a reasonable analogy with life and the process of evolution. Note carefully how I made use of your painting analogy. I used it to illustrate what is observed (and inferred) to occur in nature; I am not attempting to infer anything about life by means of this analogy. That is, I using analogy as a descriptive device, as do scientists, not as an inference rule, as do creationists.
WD: "...The complexities of the painting, however, point to application of materials with a desired result rather than by random chance, even without observation of an artist painting it."
I've already addressed that above. You cannot infer that the painter created the painting *intentionally*; that is, by choosing from the outset to create that particular painting. Doing so ignores the vitally important role of feedback from painting to painter. Once you make that observation, the painting analogy becomes a better metaphor for evolution than for special creation (with environmental pressures playing the role of the painter, of course).
WD: "...that is the reason for the analogy, to convey that a large likelihood, or by mathematics, a certainty that all of the complexity cannot happen and maintain in order without entropy over vast lengths of time without intelligence behind it."
No, no, and no. Nothing in that sentence has any basis in fact. Your reference to "likelihood" and "mathematics" in that sentence are once again based on nothing but loose analogy and gut feel. Yes, we can see lots of complex things around us that have been designed. That's no surprise--WE PUT THEM THERE! WE MADE THEM. The existence of those artifacts tells us nothing about the complex things surrounding us that we did NOT make. It's perfectly valid to wonder whether the process by which these other complex things came to be was similar in some way to the process we used to create our complex artifacts, but aside from suggesting a hypothesis, it tells us NOTHING. There is no valid INFERENCE we can make from the class of man-made artifacts to the class of "naturally occurring" complex things. Analogies tell us nothing. They may suggest, but they do not inform.
Here's a legitimate use of your analogy. You might say "I believe that a god designed us in the same way that humans design cars." As a tool for illustrating what you intend by the word "design", such analogies are quite handy. I've no problem with that at all. However, if you attempt to INFER that we were designed, because cars were, then you have just spoken nonsense. Why must our origins bear any similarity to that of a car (or painting, or computer, etc.)? Answer that first, then use the analogy to illustrate if you wish.
To expound a little more---even granting, for the sake of argument, that an infinite immaterial intelligence "thought" the material Universe into existence, the burden of proof that said "intelligence" is none other than the three-in-one man-god known as "Jesus Christ", remains in Wooly's lap. Note: if man-made holy texts and "gut-instinct" are his "evidence", then any one of thousands of "creator gods" throughout history can be validated as well.
Furthermore, let's also not forget that if "complexity" demands a "designer", then surely a infinitely wise/strong/present "intelligence" passes as "complex", therefore---by Wooly's 'logic'---requiring a "designer", as well. It's the age-old infinite regress that no Theist can over-come. They are simply answering questions with more questions.
But we're listening, Wooly.
In the case of creationist arguments, it goes like this: A watch (painting, jet airplane, car, computer, whatever..) was designed, therefore living organisms were designed, because watches and organisms are similar in some way. That "similarity" can be expressed in many different ways, such as being "complex", or having parts that work together for some purpose, etc. But the structure of the argument is inescapable: the attribute of having a creator is conferred by virtue of similarity to something else that had a creator. If anybody would like to differ, please speak up.
One of the fatal flaws in the creationist argument (aside from using analogy as an inference rule) is that the cited "similarity" is far too vague to be discerning. In fact, one can list many attributes that do not carry over from man-made artifacts (such as watches) to living organisms, despite the fact that they are both "complex", possess moving parts that work together, each part serves a purpose, etc. For example, a watch can remain in perfect working order for centuries with no input of energy while organisms cannot. A watch can be disassembled into a finite number of pieces using macroscopic tools and then be reassembled while organisms cannot. Why is it that these attributes are not shared, yet the attribute of having a creator is? Clearly, just being "complex" (and other variations on that theme) is insufficient to determine which attributes are shared.
My thinking gradually evolved closer to the nut of digesting your thoughts, but here are my notes in chronological order to my reading you:
When you say, "the entire category of natural phenomenon is without a single verifiable example of something having been created or designed," this seems like a faith proposition. You are assuming that none of them are created without proving that none of them were not created. You might mention evolution, for example as some evidence that none were created, but then I would ask you how a genetic lock-out on breeding between species came to be in place. (If there is an exception to the rule please don't quote it).
In addition I would say any evolutionary processes would be themselves inferential of intelligent design.
On randomness verses order:
Nature is designed to order itself. There exists a mathematical impossiblity of nature ordering itself without intelligent design.
A car rusting away is nature ordering itself. The fact that the car rusts away by nature ordering itself is further evidence of intelligent design because it might be inferred that a lock-out exists on and trumping over man's attempt in metals at intelligent design in the car. If numerous examples of nature ordering itself exist, all the more reason to posit by inference intelligent design behind a nature which so efficiently orders itself in a non-random way
Painters:
If you use "scientists" to mean observers only, then we need a new synthesis of observation and use of analytical abilities which allows for mathematically likely inferences to be made. Being satisfied with observation without inference from the observations seems like being stuck again with the world is flat, though anyone could, in ancient times, climb a mountain and, looking at the horizon, see that the world is not flat. Now, man-made and limited logical formats are being insisted on to come to impossible conclusions about there being no intelligent design when that design is clear all around us. You cannot possibly prove, even by the logical confinements you choose to indulge in, that there is no intelligent design.
"Nothing in the sentence has any basis in fact, aside from suggesting a hypothesis it tells us nothing." This seems like more of the same; using man-made limitations of the definition of "science," and playing with the popular notion that science is more far-ranging in scope that it actually is. Science seems to be defined so as to exclude any inference or analytical thinking which could lead to the conclusion that a designer is, for example, mathematically obvious. It seems the atheists are defining science in a way that suits them to reach their desired conclusions.
Let's look at our masonic judicial system. It cannot be assumed that a man is innocent of an act in reality just because he has been exonerated under our judicial system. The man-made rules of the judicial game are, contrary to popular notion designed to protect the sly as much as to protect the innocent.
The truth can be quite simple and obvious; a system of definitions and rules must be created in order to confuse respect for the system with unfettered seeking after truth. This is similar to the arbitrary rules and limitiations some theologians put on their thinking to arrive at desired conclusions or non-conclusions.
As for the Old and New Testament God being consistent, scripture explains the consistency. Under the old covenant laws and ordinances and worship we were being kept( preserved as individual spirits from deterioration from sin and as a culture from sin and annihilation)by God using these things to preserve us. Under the new covenant, we are preserved in a different way, having Jesus in us.
Having the potential to be closer to God as His sons and daughters, by adoption, we seem to be a bit cagier, though in spite of ourselves, since as scripture says, "the sons of this age are more shrewd than the children of light."
There are many things in scripture that take faith to agree with God on, but He is the surgeon qualified to make painful decisions we would dread. He makes these to bring something out of the chaos and mediocrity of men chosing to be their own gods. His plan and wisdom take time and patience and faith to understand it is so deep.
A mathematical improbability has occured, the word verification to send this message is the letters, "imjuew." I saved it to file.
Whether God is the God of the bible and Jesus is His plan; I think it's logical based on observing nature and making inferences about nature and people. One way to go at this would be to answer questions or objections concerning how or why this would be so. I still think God has to be working in the person's life to prepare a person to accept and know the truth, but that doesn't mean an attempt to answer questions or objections can't be made. I might expect a rash of objections and hostilities I suppose, considering the site, and wouldn't be able to answer all at once. Also, I don't say anyone couldn't make a statement, which I know is quite likely, but just making a statement isn't taken for granted always in the "religious"
world.
On if a creator is, he must be complex and where did he and his complexity originate from (Paraphrased):
Either complexity or simplicity would have to have a primal source of origination or be the primal source. Either matter or energy or a creator would have to be primal at some point. The non-theist has the same concept to grasp; that something or somebody had to be primal. Since intelligence exists, it is more sensible to conclude that the intelligence predated matter than that intelligence came from inert matter (whether that matter exists in the form of energy or light or solid matter).
You seem to have missed the word *verifiable*. If you disagree with my statement, then all you need to do is show me a *verifiable* instance of something in nature that has been "created" or "designed".
WD: "You might mention evolution, for example as some evidence that none were created..."
No. You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. It is IMPOSSIBLE, even in principle, the DISPROVE intelligent design. It is not a testable hypothesis as every conceivable observation and every conceivable experiment is consistent with intelligent design. No matter what we observe, it's possible that it is that way because some infinite deity made it that way. So, you miss my point entirely if you think evolution disproves intelligent design.
By the way, if you think being unfalsifiable lends any credibility to intelligent design, allow me add another unfalsifiable theory: My pet turtle, Fred, created the universe five minutes ago, along with all our memories, and all the illusory "evidence" of there having been a distant past. (As an aside, I have roughly equal regard for the Fred theory and the Yahweh theory.)
WD: "...I would ask you how a genetic lock-out on breeding between species came to be in place...
Geographic isolation plus genetic drift. The technical term for this is allopatric speciation.
WD: "(If there is an exception to the rule please don't quote it)."
Come again?
WD: "In addition I would say any evolutionary processes would be themselves inferential of intelligent design."
Okay. You can say it, but you'll need to back that up if you want to convince anybody.
WD: "Nature is designed to order itself...."
That's the point in question. What is your evidence for "design"?
WD: "...There exists a mathematical impossiblity of nature ordering itself without intelligent design."
A "mathematical improbability"?! Calling something mathematical does not make it mathematics. Where do the probabilities come from? What is the precise chain of reasoning? By the way, we are talking about empirical matters here, so mathematics alone has no bearing on the matter.
WD: "...If numerous examples of nature ordering itself exist, all the more reason to posit by inference intelligent design..."
You seem to be launching your argument all over again, but at a smaller scale this time. Please explain why self ordering implies "design".
WD: "If you use 'scientists' to mean observers only, then we need a new synthesis of observation and use of analytical abilities which allows for mathematically likely inferences to be made..."
I'm not going to respond to your specific comments in this section, as you seem to be suggesting some grand new vision of what science or mathematics ought to do or be. To me all these comments appear to stem from a naive view of science. Possibly you are reacting to my earlier comment that what you said was not mathematical. Well, it isn't. It was all based on loose analogies. That's not mathematics. (Incidentally, I'm a mathematician by training, so I'm quite familiar with mathematics.)
WD: "Now, man-made and limited logical formats are being insisted on to come to impossible conclusions about there being no intelligent design.... "
No. As I said, intelligent design is an untestable hypothesis. Let me clarify something. My point, from the very start, has been simply this: Your arguments for intelligent design are fallacious. Analogies and intuition are not evidence of design.
WD: "...using man-made limitations of the definition of 'science,' and playing with the popular notion that science...."
First, I am not "playing with the popular notion" of anything. You've made numerous dogmatic assertions and employed a good bit of fallacious reasoning. I've pointed those out and explained in some detail why they are fallacious and/or dogmatic. Dogma is not science. Observation, testing, and verification is science. As for science being "man made", yes, as a methodology, of course it is. I'll be happy to consider any alternative you wish to put forth. I'll even happily adopt such a methodology if you show me that it actually works. That last part it the key.
WD: "Science seems to be defined so as to exclude any inference or analytical thinking which could lead to the conclusion that a designer is, for example, mathematically obvious. It seems the atheists are defining science in a way that suits them to reach their desired conclusions."
Sorry, but that's a load of nonsense. See all my comments above.
WD: "Let's look at our masonic judicial system...."
I have neither the time nor patience today to follow each of your threads. None of this seems to addresses the fact that arguments from analogy are fallacious.
WD: "As for the Old and New Testament God being consistent, scripture explains the consistency."
So you think it's consistent for this "unchanging" god to insist on murdering children, homosexuals and adulterers at one point in history, and then to insist on forgiveness at another point in history? Sorry, I don't see that as consistent. I see it as one "holy book" being crudely grafted onto another "holy book", with some ill-conceived apologetics to smooth it over.
WD: "There are many things in scripture that take faith to agree with God on,..."
In other words, they conflict with what we would otherwise conclude, which makes them irrational beliefs. I agree.
WD: "...but He is the surgeon qualified to make painful decisions we would dread."
That is the point in question. Is there such a being? I see no evidence of one.
WD: "His plan and wisdom take time and patience and faith to understand it is so deep."
Here's another hypothesis. The "plan" you speak of is a fabrication of men. It takes time for humans to weave such stories and to convince themselves of it, against their better judgment. I think the second hypothesis is more likely, as it posits nothing more than mundane human behavior, which we observe in numerous cultures (i.e. all those following "false" religions). We know that humans invent tall stories, believe them, pass them on, embellish them, and attribute them to fantastic invisible beings. Every culture seems to have done this. It appears that you claim one such story to be actually true. I don't see any good reason to think so.
More sensible to conclude? Why is that?! Please, spell out your chain of reasoning here.
Whether God is the God of the bible and Jesus is His plan; I think it's logical based on observing nature and making inferences about nature and people.
Oh, perfect. So, "intuition" is your "evidence".
Boy, it just doesn't get anymore concrete than that, does it? lol
Wooly continues: Either complexity or simplicity would have to have a primal source of origination or be the primal source. Either matter or energy or a creator would have to be primal at some point. The non-theist has the same concept to grasp; that something or somebody had to be primal. Since intelligence exists, it is more sensible to conclude that the intelligence predated matter than that intelligence came from inert matter (whether that matter exists in the form of energy or light or solid matter).
Repeat: Until you can show, unequivocally, that there's a direct link between a disembodied "intelligence" and "Yahweh", using more than "a hunch", "gut-feelings", and/or "intuition", it is pointless to discuss the singularity or first cause. I've already conceded that, yes, there "could be" a disembodied "mind" that willed all matter into existence. Mind you, as Jim pointed out, that notion is not falsifiable. But again, neither is "Fred", the Turtle-god as Creator.
Wooly, this is ex-christian.net...NOT ex-deist.net. 'Sorry, you'll have to do better in bridging the gap.
In the name of Fred; the Tortugita; and their Holy shell!(the Trinity)..Amen.
All hail Fred. He's the shit!
(At least that's what I think he said. Hard to tell sometimes.)
"Fred bestows his blessings upon all of you"
--
Jim,
I need to wax my car soon, so rather than Fred's holy blessings, do you think he could muster up some extra holy "Turtle Wax" instead?
I'll even use the secret wax-on...wax-off holy rain dance while I'm waxing away.
Okay, I think I've waxed on long enough now....Bye for now
ATF
In the name of FR_D, his SH_LL, and a bar of soap... blessings to all.
....and "__L_SH_PH_RD."
Priceless!
fjell
You are incorrect! The Ninja Turtlians are a NEW TESTAMENT to the original OT(older turtle) ie, Fr_d. Their four gospel accounts are in complete accord with the original doctrine and are in fact Fr_d breathed. Please do not risk your immortal soul be denying their inerrantness.
Fr_d bless you all!
There is a link there to an experiment where fruit flies fed "different diets for eight or more generations and then reintroduced to each other chose mates from their own feed group. I don't make too much of this.... it doesn't say whether the two groups were reintroduced so that they would have to mate with the other group or just introduced so that they could demonstrate their preference.
The definition of a species is that the two populations cannot reproduce, I thought, meaning even if brought together after being in geographical isolation they will not succesfully interbreed. The site gives names to several different types of species lock-outs. Some are because of duplicate chromosome sets which leads to reproductive failure in plants and some to genital differences. The point is that there are lock-outs and it cannot be said that those locks-out exist without intelligent design... even geographical isolation, if that is able to lead to speciation and reproductive lock-out could be by intelligent design used as a vehicle or as a result of will leading to results consistent with Deity or Deity's intention. But then I guess we are beyond whether intelligent design is possible and heading toward the nature of the Deity if it is possible for one to exist.
"Analogies and intuition" are not what I was using soley... I used inference. Anyway, I thought you admitted that intelligent design is likely so why discuss the rules of proofs which automatically exclude the possibility of God because they are rules designed only for simple empirical observations.
Telling my reasoning is "fallacious" doesn't make it so. Remember, by your own rules you have to prove it. This is largely a matter of time and tenacity; I can answer accusations that my logic is faulty, but it takes longer to answer the accusation than it does to simply throw in a "fallacious reasoning" accusation, so this is really a political move on your part perhaps. It would also be easy to confuse when I was speaking about something that is experiental for me or a matter of faith that I said for when I was clearly talking about inference about intelligent design.
O.K. I'm going to send this part and then get on with responding to your concerns about what God, since I believe on Him I'll call Him God... you will no doubt call Him "your deity" which is fine.
God is not capable of murder. He is holy. You are jading the discussion to begin with by using "murder." God kills but cannot murder because He never makes a mistake.
God didn't just go around killing homosexuals or children without a righteous purpose. Anyway, He gave us all death as a penalty for not following Him and respecting Him. Also, death is not the same thing if a person has a soul and will live again. Being imperfect, in mind, soul, and body (by our own doing, but that is another topic) if God made us immortal in our present body we would no doubt complain that God had sentenced us to live forever in the prison of our own body.
Sodom and Gomorrah couldn't likely be said to have been destroyed merely because of homosexuals living there. There were homosexuals in Greece and Rome and God did not destroy those. There were additional factors in the history of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So far as God setting up a kingdom with rules that He wanted followed as exemplary of who He is, He did that with Israel in the Old Testament. A person had a choice not to practice homosexuality out of respect for God and His will or apparently be put to death, to whatever extent this was enforced. God inferentially finds homosexuality obnoxious, though He has been tolerating it in some nations for some time along with a host of other practices and mindsets He doesn't like.
Paul says that we were "kept" under the law(the law was a covenant to keep the people until the Messiah and the new convenant). God wanted one nation on earth that represented His holy nature in preparation for or as backround to the Messiah as the personification of who He is. If God killed or commanded children to be killed, remember they had souls and would live again in continuation of who each had become though perhaps in a different nation if their nation was destroyed. No nation or people was about to get out of the way voluntarily so that God could create a nation for Himself. This though each person owes their existence to God. He would have to exert Himself as God over a people who spit in His face and did not deserve His respect in order to make a place for His new nation.
If the topic is, "Is God consistent Old Testament and New," let's now look at the New Testament. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," when Mary Magdalene was about to be stoned. He apparently knew she had a repentant heart. So then He said, "Go and sin no more," after He convinced the stoners to stop. And she didn't say, "Who do you think you are, buddy?" She repented and followed Him. He was God on the spot and God can say "Wait a minute, this isn't allowing any heart to the limited instructions I gave you to uphold the moral nation I have been trying to get you to cooperate to create."
You say you see no evidence of such a being.
You know it boils down to would you, if God loved you and is righteous and fair, be willing to accept His help to learn to do His will and follow Him? If you have a soul and God has a plan and is all powerful I mean. You don't have to prove this, it is really in your heart. Only you know your heart... and God. A person can't ask God, who is King, to do anything, unless he has good and sincere intentions... which in this case is that God reveal Himself, and the good intention is that you will follow and let Him work in your life if indeed He is righteous and will show you that He is. If you are sincere and ready you just say, "Please show yourself to me... if you are who you say you are." Counting the cost I count as part of being sincere.
WD: "I went to the allopatric speciation..."
Good for you. That is more than most visitors do. I'm not going to quarrel over the definition of "species" at the moment, or point to numerous other experiments that demonstrate speciation. We can get to all of that later if need be. More fundamental issues of "logic" loom before us.
WD: "The point is that there are lock-outs and it cannot be said that those locks-out exist without intelligent design..."
Right! Did you read what I wrote above? Everything anybody observes--EVERYTHING--can be "said" to be a result of intelligent design. And for all we know, it could be. Similarly, my turtle Fred may have created everything five minutes ago. (Oops. Make that 23 hours ago.)
So, continuing to insist that something *could* be the result of ID is completely useless. It says precisely as much as my Fredian claim does (which, in case you aren't following, is absolutely nothing--no offense to Fred).
WD: "But then I guess we are beyond whether intelligent design is possible...."
Apparently not....
WD: "'Analogies and intuition' are not what I was using soley... I used inference."
Please point to where you used a valid inference! Thus far, you've invoked nothing but fallacious reasoning. That has been my entire point, and you've yet to counter what I've said. If you "infer" based on analogy, then you are invoking a fallacy--what you conclude DOES NOT follow logically from your premises. Do you understand my point? (I know you don't *agree*--I'm asking whether you *understand*.)
WD: "Anyway, I thought you admitted that intelligent design is likely...."
LIKELY?!!! I don't think you're paying attention, or you're not understanding what I'm writing. Do you understand that there is huge difference between "possible" and "likely"? That latter certainly implies the former, but NOT the reverse. It is *possible* that Fred created the universe. Will you agree with me that it's not likely? I hope so. Now please understand--your claim, to my ears, is not appreciably better than the claim about Fred.
WD: "...so why discuss the rules of proofs which automatically exclude the possibility of God because they are rules designed only for simple empirical observations."
Okay, you are definitely not paying attention. There are no "rules of proof" (whatever you may mean by that) that "automatically exclude" ANYTHING, let alone "the possibility of God". This is a ploy that I've seen countless believers use; when their arguments are shown to be fallacious, they attack logic itself as being too "limiting", or having a built-in bias. Not so, and I'll happily demonstrate this for you if need be.
I'm guessing you do not fully understand what is meant by the terms "inference" or "fallacy", and this may be part of why you are not following my points. Informally, an "inference" is a step in the reasoning process that follows a pattern--one that can be shown, through countless examples, to produce true statements from true premises (a "premise" being something assumed or shown to be true previously, either axiomatically or via another chain of inferences). EXAMPLE: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (There is also a distinction between "inductive" inferences and "deductive" inferences, but I don't think we need to get into that now--I'm assuming that we're primarily talking about the latter.) Informally, a "fallacy" is an application of a bad inference rule--one that can be shown to sometimes produce FALSE statements from true premises. EXAMPLE: Socrates died. Socrates was a man. Therefore, all men die. Please note that this last example is a *fallacy*, even though the conclusion is true, AND the premises are true. Do you understand why this is a fallacy, and why fallacies should be avoided? (I'll leave this as an exercise.)
WD: "Telling my reasoning is 'fallacious' doesn't make it so."
Correct!
WD: "Remember, by your own rules you have to prove it."
My own rules? What rules would those be? The "rule" I generally adhere to when discussing things with people here is that I *support* what I say by reason and/or evidence. I've done that amply with every assertion I've made. Do you deny that? Conversely, you've not even attempted to support many of your assertions, and those that you have have been fallacious for the most part.
WD: "This is largely a matter of time and tenacity; I can answer accusations that my logic is faulty, but it takes longer to answer the accusation than it does to simply throw in a 'fallacious reasoning' accusation..."
That is patently FALSE, and the implication is appallingly disingenuous on your part. Look at how much I've written to support my claims. I've spelled them out in detail. I've told you PRECISELY why your arguments are fallacious--why arguments that follow the pattern you used (analogy) can (and do) produce nonsense. In contrast, you have supported NOTHING you've said so far with clear reasoning. You simply make assertion after assertion, and invoke vague analogies.
WD: "...so this is really a political move on your part perhaps."
Wow. That's a stretch. Political? Come off it. I've explained IN DETAIL why your arguments are fallacious. If you cannot counter what I said, please have enough integrity to remain silent, or (better yet) admit that you have some work to do.
WD: "It would also be easy to confuse when I was speaking about something that is experiental for me or a matter of faith..."
It needn't be confusing. Simply state it. However, if you tell me that you believe something on faith, then you cannot use it as a premise in another argument (unless you are willing to admit that the conclusion is also a matter of faith). Once you make a leap of faith, that's what your argument rests upon from that point on. Do you follow?
(End of Logic 101 a.)
This is a matter of semantics. But more importantly, it rests upon your assertion that "God never makes a mistake". Let's see what you have to back that (as well as the more fundamental assertion that he exists).
WD: "...God didn't just go around killing homosexuals or children without a righteous purpose."
What does "righteous purpose" mean? Does god (by your definition) do ANYTHING that does not have a "righteous purpose"? Is it possible for him to do so? If not, then you are simply asserting that god can kill whenever and however he chooses.
WD: "...So far as God setting up a kingdom with rules that He wanted followed as exemplary of who He is, He did that with Israel in the Old Testament."
Do you find the laws of Leviticus "exemplary" of who god is? Leviticus is essentially a hate manual, filled with barbaric injunctions against people for a wide assortment of behaviors. Do you think that stoning a disobedient child is good parenting? Is that practice consistent with an all-knowing and all-loving entity?
WD: "A person had a choice not to practice homosexuality out of respect for God and His will or apparently be put to death,..."
I suppose one could just as easily choose not to eat. But that aside, this assumes that you or anybody else knows what god's "will" is. I assume you claim to know this through the Bible, and perhaps through revelation as well. I don't believe these claims, nor do millions of others. One reason I doubt them is that the Bible is filled with such horrific violence, even against children. You claim, in effect, that this violence is okay because it is sanctioned by a "holy" god who is "righteous" in all he does. (Is that a fair statement?) I ask, "How do you know it is so sanctioned?" You reply (apparently) "The Bible tells me!"
Which brings me to the fundamental question: How do you know the Bible is the word of god? And more fundamentally, how do you know there is a god, and if there is, that it is Yahweh?
With regard to consistency between OT and NT, WD said "...He [Jesus] said, 'Go and sin no more,' after He convinced the stoners to stop. And she didn't say, 'Who do you think you are, buddy?' She repented and followed Him. He was God on the spot..."
Summary: Jesus stopped the stoning of Mary, so Jesus is compassionate. Mary accepted his gesture without question, so Jesus is god. Therefore, since Jesus is compassionate, and Jesus is god, god is compassionate. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between OT and NT.
Before I respond to this bit of reasoning, please tell me whether I correctly understood the point of your story. If not, please correct me. I'd appreciate it if you would keep it concise and perspicuous (as I have tried to do in my summary, albeit possibly incorrectly).
WD: "If you are sincere and ready you just say, 'Please show yourself to me... if you are who you say you are.' Counting the cost I count as part of being sincere."
Either your notion of being "sincere" requires that I first *believe* such a being exists, or it does not. If it does, then your statement is circular: you are attempting to convince me that god exists by having me believe it first. That's nonsense, right? Now, if being "sincere" does NOT necessarily entail first believing in such a deity (which is far more reasonable), then I maintain that I have been sincere in my efforts to detect such a being all my life. (By the way, as I child I *did* believe in the god of Abraham, and I *did* ask him many things, including that he show himself. He did not. Can you accept that as evidence of your claim being untrue?)
When I got to where you selected out my words and twisted the meaning out of context regarding Mary Magdalene and stoning I decided to respond. It seems to me you are purposely confusing topics and issues to be deceptive.
If someone wants to read what I said, he had better read what I wrote in its original context and entirety.
I said "...please tell me whether I correctly understood the point of your story. If not, please correct me. I'd appreciate it if you would keep it concise and perspicuous (as I have tried to do in my summary, albeit possibly incorrectly)."
Your complaints are puerile, and your accusations are ad hominem. If you don't like my summary, I invite you to either 1) point out what is wrong, 2) fix it, or 3) offer a new one. The ball is in your court.
WD: "If the topic is, 'Is God consistent Old Testament and New,' let's now look at the New Testament. Jesus said, 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,' when Mary Magdalene was about to be stoned. He apparently knew she had a repentant heart. So then He said, 'Go and sin no more,' after He convinced the stoners to stop. And she didn't say, 'Who do you think you are, buddy?' She repented and followed Him. He was God on the spot and God can say 'Wait a minute, this isn't allowing any heart to the limited instructions I gave you to uphold the moral nation I have been trying to get you to cooperate to create.'"
And my reply was...
JA: "With regard to consistency between OT and NT, WD said '...He [Jesus] said, "Go and sin no more," after He convinced the stoners to stop. And she didn't say, "Who do you think you are, buddy?" She repented and followed Him. He was God on the spot...'
"Summary: Jesus stopped the stoning of Mary, so Jesus is compassionate. Mary accepted his gesture without question, so Jesus is god. Therefore, since Jesus is compassionate, and Jesus is god, god is compassionate. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between OT and NT.
"Before I respond to this bit of reasoning, please tell me whether I correctly understood the point of your story. If not, please correct me. I'd appreciate it if you would keep it concise and perspicuous (as I have tried to do in my summary, albeit possibly incorrectly)."
Notice that in my "summary" of WD's argument, I took the liberty of filling in several missing connections, including between NT and OT, as WD didn't seem to supply one. (That was supposed to be the whole point, after all.) It's possible that that's what he intended in the last sentence of his quote, but I could not decipher it. Needless to say, my summary was a cajoling invitation (which I then made explicit) for him to be more clear. Is there any chance of that happening? Perhaps a small one.
Peace, Jeremy
Wouldn't that kinda be like eating different piece of the same bullshit.
Smells the same anyway.
Either way, you seem to be implying that out of the 33,000 some-odd splits/denominations/sects of Christianity, that Methodists are privy to the One and Only Objective Truth, correct? If this is fair statement, then I ask: Where is your objective evidence? Thanks in advance.
I think it's because "Mr." is a title given to indivduals of the male gender. Your name "Jim" is a name commonly given to men. Hopefully this will put an end to that mystery.
Also, atheists are dumb because they have no proof to back up thier silly belief system. Not even questionable evidence like Christians. Christians are dumb because they know nothing about the God the worship.
E.g., Atheists have no knowledge of a God. So, hopeless, shall we see you convening the next atheist symposium... that is, unless you have some knowledge of a God.
As I read the comments, it reminds me of the Christians I know in my life (my family for example).
From my experience, it's not the evidence that causes them to believe so much as being born into it, and then believing God has changed their life, or "blessed" it somehow.
It's like giving someone a magic pill, and telling them this has great power, and it will help you if you just believe. So they do, and they work hard, and lo and behold, they change!! And they keep on believing in this power pill and sharing the Good News to all, and you just want to wake them up and tell them its not real.
Like God, why can't they see what seems so obvious?
And for the most part, this may not be harmful to them or those around them. It might actually continue to be beneficial. So why speak out against it? Because when you look at the big picture, it becomes dangerous. Because entire lives are built on false reasoning. People's priorities become skewed. And these people can make choices based on false presumptions, that effect all of us.
One, albeit fanciful,example.. what if we find out that a comet is going to destroy Earth 10 years from now. What will we as a human race do? I would worry that all the God/afterlife believers would jump at the chance to "save" as many souls as possible, seeing the comet as God's plan, and there is no need to worry for he has everything in control. Where as unbelievers as a whole would be more inclined to find a way to save the planet.
Sure, Christians can do good things, so can non-Christians. It's not about the good that happens, it's about the bad that happens BECAUSE of religion. And when these bad things happen, religion doesn't seek to change.
In my opinion, many people use God as a temporary fix. Whether its because they need a greater purpose, or social need or [insert common human condition here]. They have some need, and don't have the right tools to fix it (or don't bother to look), so they find a God to fit this need. And there ARE tools out there, to fix it right, but it might take some time and some study. God is a temp-fix, duck tape at best.
I was a Christian for a number of years. One side of my family has four generations of Pastors, with a couple of ministers on the other side too. My whole family worked (and some still work) for the church. But thankfully I questioned. I love science and logic and it was only a matter of time before I finally put religion to the test. It took me a good 5 years of further reading, studying and questioning before I was able to have a strong foundation in which to live my life. But that doesn't mean I've stopped questioning or searching.
It was scary, and it was new to me, but the more I saw the truth the stronger I felt. As a Christian, you feel you have it all together, like you are strong and unshakeable. You think the non-Christians are lost, with no purpose. But for most free-thinkers, rationalists, atheists, this isn't true.
When Christians ask me, "How can you be moral when you don't believe in God?" or "If you don't believe in God, what's the point, why don't you just kill yourself?" It tells me, their mind and reasoning is in a bad place. In my opinion, this is why so many of the deconverted feel more free. We can look at things like death, morals, suffering, pleasure, family, self, life ect.. and see things how they really are, the real truth to these things as we know it now. I can give good, reality-based reasons to why I don't steal or hurt others, rather than, "Because God said so, and I love God". I don't know it all, and I can admit that. Noone knows it all. But that's no reason to assume there must be a God out there.
If you would like to submit that post as an article, or if you might want to submit something else along these lines, feel free to contact me by clicking here.
I certainly came away with the impression that most of the people posting would be better described as "Christians Mad at God" rather than exChristians. So much so that I'd suggest changing the name of the website to that.
But then I read Dave's "anti-testimony", wow, what a difference. Well reasoned, thoughtful and certainly well researched. I have to give him kudos for his diligence, I don't know of too many people who would have the stamina and patience to learn the precepts of so many religions. Most people give up after one or two tries at different churches in one religion, let alone the plethora Dave muddled through.
It would take a special person to debate Dave and I am certainly not that man. However, it strikes me as odd that the majority of members here don't "follow their new found faith" (free thinking).
While reading many of their testimonies a single word kept cropping up in my mind; rationalization. So I went to wikipedia (this source must be considered bona fide here as even Dave has links to it) to look up what it had to say and it was quite surprising:
"Rationalization-
In psychology, rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a flawed decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.
This process can be in a range from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
For an example, consider a person who bought one of the first home computers in 1980 primarily motivated by the excitement of playing with a computer. If he felt that his friends would not accept "having fun" as a sufficient reason for the purchase, he might have searched for other justifications and ended up telling them how much time it was going to save him in doing his taxes.
Another example is a person who apostasies out of a religion - for example a person who leaves Islam will tell him/her self they've made the right choice, many apostates of the former faith will go even to great lengths to demonize their former faith, according to new studies in psychology. According to Gordon Melton, while testifying as an expert witness in a lawsuit, said that when investigating groups, one should not rely solely upon the unverified testimony of ex-members, and that hostile ex-members would invariably shade the truth and blow out of proportion minor incidents turning them into major incidents. [1]. Bryan R. Wilson, who was a professor of Sociology at Oxford University, writes that apostates of religious movements, are generally in need of self-justification, seeking to reconstruct their own past and to excuse their former affiliations, while blaming those who were formerly their closest associates. Wilson utilizes the term of atrocity story that is in his view rehearsed by the apostate to explain how, by manipulation, coercion or deceit, he was recruited to a group that he now condemns.[2] Wilson also challenges the reliability of the apostate's testimony by saying that "[apostates] always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader."[3]"
The surprising part was finding out that some of the best examples were of apostates. That is what I noticed on this site. It isn't that you're "exChristians" it's that as "freethinkers" why aren't you formulating and promulgating your "thoughts and ideas" for a better planet, better community, better neighborhood, better family, and better you? Why instead do I see diatribes against a Being you no longer believe in? Why do all your arguments revolve around new ways to mock or ridicule the "non-existent nothingness"(small g-god, xtian, and a whole panoply (Merriam-Webster 3a) of made up derivatives of Jesus, Christ, God?
One of the posts linked to the Author du jour (Sam Harris, I think) and extolled his critical thinking and concise points to support atheism (actually he was making the case against using that label). In that link, Harris postulated that we don't talk about the "flying spaghetti monster" so why should atheists give God so much top billing.
Good question, why do you?
Calling Christians names, yes some of you are quite effusive with the words that need asterisks, doesn't make you better than them. In fact, it makes you just like the Christians who post and tell you you're all going to Hell.
Do I believe in Heaven and Hell, yep. But would I post that kind of logic on this site and then say, aha...that will really clear things up for them, pure foolishness on my part if I did.
I think the best thing about this site for me is that it helps clarify the positions on the "truth" in this world. I have a truth in which I believe and given the same data inputs (sunrise, rain, love, hate, chocolate, the Bible) your beliefs are quite different. Some, like Dave, have at least taken the time to learn of my beliefs. Some have believed what I believe. But sadly, many no longer believe. That's ok, because if I want you to have the freedom to make up your own mind (who knows someday you could change your mind again) I should support Dave's right to run this site. Unfortunately, Dave is extremely accurate when he points out that many Christians are far too ignorant of the Bible, God, Jesus and why they believe what they believe. And therein lies my gratitude for this site.
Thanks for pointing out where I have become lazy in my thinking. Thanks for showing that if I am not diligent in study, or strong in my beliefs that they can change 180 degrees due to painful circumstances, hurtful friends, false prophets and a myriad of other reasons.
To those who, like Dave, are constantly seeking answers, more power to you. Maybe you'll be proven correct, but if not, you'll at least die knowing you were forever seeking more information with which you could ponder the truly large issues of the day. And if your lack of belief in g-god and His Unconditional Love along with my belief in God and Jesus Christ as my personal savior allows us to end up sharing eternity together, then we'll have some amazing debates. On the other hand, if my God doesn't really exist and your belief is correct, well then we die, our "candle" is extinguished, and neither one of our opinions is important ever again (but at least photons bounced off our bodies while we were here).
Tony
Thanks for your politely toned comment. I think your questions are adequately answered by another article on this site: Not Ready to Be Nice.
What if I saw religion as a bane to humanity? That I saw, religion as finding its way into medical practice, laws, public education, etc., to the detriment of citizens and myself. Surely, you have the intellectual capacity to understand that "fixing" the problem, is to go to the source - religion.
Do you understand what a subjective reality and objective reality are?
It's when some use their subjective reality to teach others, make decisions, and interact with people in society that I find a problem.
To teach one's subjective reality, as an objective fact to children, should be outlawed, and yes, the use of the word God has to be used, in order to "cite" the words used in such a "con".
Making a better society and planet, for the most part, comes from removing confusion so that people can honestly work together with clarity.
Consider the word "God" to be one of those words that infuse con-fusion, in the most minute of matters in society, and those trying to objectify that word as trying to "purge" such con-fusion in order to remove yet, another tool of manipulation that can be used by the "con" artist.
Tony, do you find a problem with keeping people honest? Do you believe the word God can "ever" be used in an "objective" sense?
Looking forward to your response.
Good question, why do you?
Here's the short list: Because Theists insist that, yes, "God" in fact does exist... yet, interestingly, there is no agreement amongst them as to which brand, version, model of "God" is the One True "God". Meanwhile, the "Holy" texts of the world's three major monotheistic religions condone and promote the killing of those who don't accept their respective doctrines. BTW, did you know that we're in a Holy/political war right now? Did you know that innocent people, including children, are the collateral damage of this war?
Tony: And if your lack of belief in g-god(whatever a "g-god" is) and His Unconditional Love along with my belief in God and Jesus Christ as my personal savior allows us to end up sharing eternity together, then we'll have some amazing debates.
Honestly now, how will we "end up sharing eternity together", when we skeptics will presumably be roasting away in horrific agony in the place that your, uh, "Unconditionally" loving "God", specifically designed for non-believers? Do tell.
Boom, I apologize that my economy of words confused you. Maybe you read the note before reacting, maybe not. I was referring to my earlier assessment that the members of this site spend an awful lot of time finding ways to mock the deity they profess does not exist. I supported that assertion with examples I found on this website, one of the primary ones being the use of a "small g" when spelling god. The fact that you missed those statements and became confused can be blamed on my reluctance to re-explain myself when using the terminology more than once.
As for the rest of that statement, I was actually paraphrasing something Dave said in his anti-testimony (you should read it, it's pretty good) but I failed to use quotes. In response to an intemperate Christian comment, Dave said that if God's love was "unconditional" then he had nothing to worry about. Left unsaid was that Dave and the Christian would both be in Heaven. I am pretty sure that was sarcasm on Dave's part.
Again I will apologize for leaving you so completely in the dark.
Finally, boomSlang writes: Here's the short list: Because Theists insist that, yes, "God" in fact does exist... yet, interestingly, there is no agreement amongst them as to which brand, version, model of "God" is the One True "God".
Ok, so I get it, you talk about God all the time because Theists do, and because they can't agree on "which version is correct". Hmmm...
And then the clincher reason for your giving God top billing is because (unknown to me?!) we are in a Holy/political war? I am sorry to break this news to you but "innocent people and children" (BTW your phraseology makes the reader draw the conclusion that children are not "innocent people") are always collateral damage whether the war is Holy, political or atheistic in nature.
But really, if I wanted to debate war, there are better places than this.
Can I ask a question: when will you be "over" this angst and when will you be strong enough to face the everyday issues involved in your decision? Otherwise, we "believers" will forever have to walk on tippytoes to have discussions with you.
I agree with your points that a lot of Christians don't get it, don't treat you or your decision with respect.
But if your ideals (atheism, free-thinking...wait y'all have more than one thing you call it, does that make it invalid? You might ask boomSlang)are strong and your belief in them correct and those on the other side of the idealogical aisle are in danger of living a useless life, don't you want to engage each and everyone in a reasoned debate when they show up here?
Don't you want them to look loony and you to look civil?
I think that is my point, let's not allow either side to be polemic.
Casting aspersions are we? tsk, tsk.
Dave8 said: "That I saw, religion as finding its way into medical practice, laws, public education, etc., to the detriment of citizens and myself."
So when asked for your "better plan" for society, you intimate the destruction of society (because religion created it/infiltrated it).
And then you go all psychological on me. Nope Dave, I admit I'd never heard the objective/subjective reality spin, but I had a good idea and, once again, wikipedia came to my rescue.
So the "universe" is an objective reality (because we can see it, measure it, define it) and whether there "is a Creator" (my subjective reality) or "isn't a Creator" (your subjective reality) is the debate right?
Or was your condescension towards me meant to also imply your view of the "Creator" is objective reality?
Finally Dave8 said: "Making a better society and planet, for the most part, comes from removing confusion so that people can honestly work together with clarity."
Platitudes? Dave, I asked for a plan, a reason and some logic, not platitudes.
But I will humor you, as the article the webmaster suggested I read described; your (re: atheists) "withdrawal" from theology is associated with anger, frustration and lots of venting. Your (Dave8's) solution is to remove all religion from "everything" and I surmise that boomSlang's would be to de-convert all Christians.
So we'd have a nation of angry, frustrated citizens venting at whomever used the word God, a society with Christian-based charity evaporating (whoops there are a lot of those), and as long as we eliminate "confusion" we'd all be hunky-dory.
I'll have to check back with you later Dave, I'm not sure my credulity will stretch that far.
TIC: "Casting aspersions are we? tsk, tsk."
If the source is “religion”, I don’t see the problem, religion doesn’t get a “free pass”, and I have “personally” witnessed and lived a life based on direct “lies” promoted by religion – that is called “fact” not “aspersion”.
Dave8: "Making a better society and planet, for the most part, comes from removing confusion so that people can honestly work together with clarity."
Perhaps, you didn't understand the post... Religion has a marked "history" of "creating" confusion, especially when it directly calls into question - natural facts.
Christianity is a supernaturally oriented religion, is it not?
Dave8 said: "That I saw, religion as finding its way into medical practice, laws, public education, etc., to the detriment of citizens and myself."
TIC: "So when asked for your "better plan" for society, you intimate the destruction of society (because religion created it/infiltrated it)."
:-) You assert that religion precedes humanity, either by origin or by assimilation. That is patently false; humans were alive a lot earlier than Christianity.
And, "once again" here's that "better plan".
Dave8: "Making a better society and planet, for the most part, comes from removing confusion so that people can honestly work together with clarity."
Notice, a recurring theme here.
TIC: "And then you go all psychological on me."
Tsk, tsk, getting all paranoid on me, or perhaps, you have frequented this site, and are expecting me to drill into your online personality :-)
TIC: "Nope Dave, I admit I'd never heard the objective/subjective reality spin, but I had a good idea and, once again, wikipedia came to my rescue."
Fantastic... it appears we moving honestly forward ;-)
TIC: "So the "universe" is an objective reality (because we can see it, measure it, define it)..."
Now, now, don't limit the potential of the Universe; we need to make sense out of our reality here. An "objective" reality allows us the potential to obtain "common" knowledge – and allows us to "understand" each other when our "referents" to our "ideas" are in the "objective" reality that surrounds us "both".
TIC: "...and whether there "is a Creator" (my subjective reality) or "isn't a Creator" (your subjective reality) is the debate right?"
Now, you're getting the hang of it. Yes, your subjective reality is what your mind creates, from morality to idealist ventures of nationalism, etc., that you would presumably use as a logical principle to found/append to your philosophy/theology of life.
I'd suggest that "all" of our ideas come to us from an "objective" reality :-) We may churn our sensory inputs differently in our cognitive process, but, the objective reality "is" our source for all knowledge - to me.
Now, others may suggest that we are born with knowledge, or even, that we receive transcendental revelation in the form of perfect… ummmmm, let’s just leave it at perfect “things”…
The point to be taken away here, is that to communicate effectively, one has to be capable of linking their subjective product/idea to "reality" that can be understood by others.
On the other hand, a person can call their "subjective" idea, an "objective" fact, that which was "pulled" or "revealed" directly, without cognitive manipulation, from an "objective" reality.
That... is a statement founded on ignorance at best, or an outright "lie". Now, I wouldn't want to "characterize" an entire religion under the "lie" group", or the "ignorant" group, perhaps, it's a little of both. But, there is no "doubt" that Christian theology suggests that God is an "Objective" fact, that the "Creator" of the "Universe" was not "created" in the "mind" of a single individual in their "subjective" reality, using a cognitive mixing process, using objective elements of our "objective" reality. Nope, God is Universal in “presence” and Objective – meaning… I and the entire human race should be capable of holding a common knowledge of such ;-)
TIC: "Or was your condescension towards me meant to also imply your view of the "Creator" is objective reality?"
Well... that is a long story; let's just keep it on the 101 session... I will suggest I "came" from an "Objective" Reality, through a process called natural human "birth". However, "I" would not characterize our "Objective" Reality, as my "Creator", I am the product of a "creation" process - that would be - plural elements, not singular.
As well, I would not use the word God/Creator to label each part of the "process", or even as "gods", I would assign a word that "Identifies" each element "objectively", so you could understand clearly what I was talking about - to facilitate clear and effective communication - "avoid" confusion.
TIC: "Finally Dave8 said: "Making a better society and planet, for the most part, comes from removing confusion so that people can honestly work together with clarity."
TIC: "Platitudes? Dave, I asked for a plan, a reason and some logic, not platitudes."
Platitude: "A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant. See Synonyms at cliché. Lack of originality; triteness."
:-) When I add 2+2, I keep getting 4... I suppose, you would call that consistency and reliability, which are leading principles that allow people to "succeed" in life to be - unnecessary - or, unoriginal and trite.
Want to impress someone TIC, what is it to be a "successful" Christian... :-) Surely, using the bible, one can find a solid formula to show a consistently held standard, such that a civilization can "thrive".
If there is "no plan", then religion in itself is "arbitrary", and thus, not really part of the successes that a religion would be able to "claim" :-)
In short, any claim to a success would not be for the "structure" of a religion, it would be due directly to each individual's efforts where religion really wasn't "necessary".
If you... evade the question, it's a statement to the lack of a plan by the way.
TIC: "But I will humor you, as the article the webmaster suggested I read described; your (re: atheists) "withdrawal" from theology is associated with anger, frustration and lots of venting."
Actually, I can't speak for any other person but myself ;-) My withdrawal from theology, came from studying "more" than a bible.
Given the thousands of years that pre-dated Christianity, and numerous gods, and religions... history, archeology, etc., I came to the conclusion that Christianity did not have a "monopoly" on a God/gods.
I left theology, because I earned a degree from a theology based university, and have thousands of hours of research. If you want to pick apart the bible, we can begin as soon as you want, which version should we start with.
I know of "no" theology that is "coherent" in terms of allowing a person to "understand" it, in "relation" to our "Reality".
The "gap", between the subjectively held belief, germane to theology, does not "link" to our "Objective" Reality.
If you would like to take a stab at defending a theological first principle to establish a God Identity, which can be afforded reliable and valid testing, then I can be amused for a while...
That's not to say, you may not have the ability... However, your silence on the matter, is again, a statement.
TIC: "Your (Dave8's) solution is to remove all religion from "everything"..."
Now, now, don't get angry or pass aspersions, take a nice deep breath. You're obviously projecting your cognitive fears onto your keyboard... if you are suggesting that your "religion" or that "religions" in general, are "generating" confusion to children and citizens in society... then, yes, I suppose that removing confusion would have a "secondary" effect of calling into "question" those religions that promote chaos/confusion.
However, my "direct" intent, is to "not" attack religion... it's to attack "ignorance" and "confusion"... albeit, your defensive nature on the matter seems to validate the connection between confusion and religion, or at least, by the words you are using :-)
Let me add... it would seem myopic for someone to argue for a "religious" centric society, where "all" roads must cross "religion", how Romanesque... Clearing up confusion, crosses over public education, and professional practices, government, etc... Those who can't understand that the earth/religion isn't the center of the Universe, has... well, some confusion to deal with.
TIC: "So we'd have a nation of angry, frustrated citizens venting at whomever used the word God, a society with Christian-based charity evaporating (whoops there are a lot of those), and as long as we eliminate "confusion" we'd all be hunky-dory."
It has occurred to me that you seem extremely "defensive" about such a simple goal I aspire towards... to remove mental confusion... so that a society can communicate more effectively and thrive - physically and mentally.
Are you suggesting, that you can't figure out an "honest" and "truthful" way, to "present" a religion or religious belief(s)?
Is that too much to ask? If a person can't "prove" that God is an objective fact, then is it asking too much, for them not to present such in a science classroom?
TIC: "I'll have to check back with you later Dave, I'm not sure my credulity will stretch that far."
Who's asking you to accept my goal of "honesty"? You don't have to "stretch" anywhere, you made a comment regarding religion, and its place in society, and I've stated I just want... pure, unadulterated honesty to prevail in society. If the two are not compatible, for "whatever" reason, then I choose the path of honesty - even to the detriment of religion, if "religion" can not find a way to present themselves "honestly".
And, as I have been known to do, I'll leave a quote...
Benjamin Franklin: "The way to see by faith, is to shut the eye of reason."
Elbert Hubbard: "Dogma: A lie imperiously reiterated and authoritatively injected into the mind of one or more persons who believe they believe what some one else believes."
As long as there are people coming out of the controlling religious cult(s) of Christianity, there will be people needing a place to rant. That's what this site is for. If it offends or irritates you to witness the anger some people feel after being mind-raped by a lunatic religion, just look for the little red X in the corner of your browser and click it.
"Don't you want to engage each and everyone in a reasoned debate when they show up here? "
No, I don't. Read the site disclaimer. This site exists expressly for the purpose of encouraging those who are somewhere along in the process of de-converting. I am not interested in catering to the urges of mystically mind-numbed religionists. Unfortunately, Christians cannot resist the compulsion to hang out here and post apologetic rhetoric, so...
"Don't you want them to look loony and you to look civil?
I think that is my point, let's not allow either side to be polemic."
I've got a better idea. How about you go create a website of your own and run it in accordance with whatever standards you think important. I promise you, I'll never barge in to your website and assume an attitude of rude and nervy authority by attempting to tell you how you should be expressing yourself on your own blog.
Besides, there is no way to avoid polemics when Christianity is involved.
From Wikipedia: Polemics (pronounced IPA: /pəˈlɛmɪks/, /poʊ-/) is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.
The antonym of a polemic source is an apologia.
Thanks WM for hosting this site, and allowing us the ability to voice our concerns.
D8: Point taken and conceded...you've read more than me, are smarter than me and can win any debate about any version of the bible I care to choose.
I infer from your statements that your additional knowledge above and beyond what is in a bible gives you a certain view of "truth" and allows you to hold an opinion of "religion" that differs from mine. Ok.
"Facts" vs. "Faith" or "Truth" vs. "Religion", is that where we're at?
D8 said: "That's not to say, you may not have the ability... However, your silence on the matter, is again, a statement."
Don't know why, but I chuckled out loud at this...given the one way dialogue inherent in a blog (of written words).
D8, many of the statements you made I can almost agree with, no, more accurately I agree with them until the twist you add at the end (D8 said: In short, any claim to a success would not be for the "structure" of a religion, it would be due directly to each individual's efforts where religion really wasn't "necessary").
I was with you all the way until those last three words.
At any rate, I learned something from our interaction, and I hope, I can use it to further my own individual goals.
It sounds like you are very satisfied with the reach and impact of your life and how you are able to share your beliefs with others.
I hope someday to do the same. And, as I also am only halfway done with my life maybe we'll have the chance to meet.
BTW, what version of the Bible would you say had the biggest impact on your decision(english version as I don't know any of the historical languages)?
WM said: "If it offends or irritates you to witness the anger some people feel after being mind-raped by a lunatic religion, just look for the little red X in the corner of your browser and click it."
TIC: Ouch!
WM said: "I've got a better idea. How about you go create a website of your own and run it in accordance with whatever standards you think important. I promise you, I'll never barge in to your website and assume an attitude of rude and nervy authority by attempting to tell you how you should be expressing yourself on your own blog."
TIC: Ok, I'll accept that promise. But, WM one final question: can I change 4 words in your challenge and still hold you to your promise? ("I've got a better idea. How about you go create a nation of your own and run it in accordance with whatever standards you think important. I promise you, I'll never barge in to your country and assume an attitude of rude and nervy authority by attempting to tell you how you should be expressing yourself in your own country."
TIC: Would that work for you?
Comparing a country where there is freedom of religion, and freedom from it, to a privately owned website?.. complete with disclaimer? To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said TIC cannot believe whatever fantastic stories he wants to believe.
You've run your course.
No, no.....no apologies necessary. I just thought it might be a variation of "G-d", or YHWH. You know, some new-fangled way for Christians to express their deity.
Tony: I was referring to my earlier assessment that the members of this site spend an awful lot of time finding ways to mock the deity they profess does not exist.
So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that you've taken the time to read all, or at least a good portion of the testimonies here at EX-Christian.net, and what you've assessed from it; what "stands out" the most, is that you feel we're really just, "Christians mad at God"?.... oh, because we "mock" h-him. Well, no astonishing revelation there.....that's what most Christians get out of it when they stumble in here. They never seem to pick up on the part(s) about the many of us who have invested huge portions of our lives as devout believers. They cannot accept that we've simply lost faith in "Faith".
Tony: Ok, so I get it, you talk about God all the time because Theists do, and because they can't agree on "which version is correct".
Yes!..that's a good part of it! This might be easier than I thought, for a change. Similar to how there would obviously be no need to talk about developing a flu vaccine, if it were not for influenza. Correct!
Tony: And then the clincher reason for your giving God top billing is because (unknown to me?!) we are in a Holy/political war? I am sorry to break this news to you but "innocent people and children" (BTW your phraseology makes the reader draw the conclusion that children are not "innocent people")..
boom': "...innocent people, including children, are the collateral damage of this war?"
I'm sorry you that's what you got out of my wording---I'm quite confident most others "got it", however.
Tony: [innocent people] are always collateral damage whether the war is Holy, political or atheistic in nature.
Find me a war that is currently being fought over "no god"; find me a suicide bomber who blows him or herself up in the name of "no god"; find me some young men who intend to use jet-liners as lethal missles in the name of "no god", and I will happily join you in petitioning against it.
BoomSlang already sufficiently answered your latest comment to me, but just in case his response was too concisely stated...
This is a website, not a country. A better analogy than yours would be to describe this place on the net as a privately owned home with an inviting porch. The front door to the place is wide open and there's big sign that says, "Welcome Friends -- No Soliciting."
Please read the site disclaimer before you bother posting anything else. Thanks.
Okay, I concede we understand religions likely differently. I see theism as quite diverse, as diverse as atheism. However, where we may likely differ in "truth", is based on accepting opinions that may conflict with known facts.
There are different ways people come to their positions, I measure them by premises/axioms/first principles put forward, or not.
While someone may appeal to a moral first principle, I may not glance twice, because... hey, I understand where they are coming from. As well, if a person never proffered their position at all, I probably wouldn't "ask", unless they were engaged in conversation, and it was germane to the topic at hand.
However, when a person approaches "me", and attempts to "reason" with me, I default to epistemology or knowledge as the basis of discussion. I have a need to "know" how a person is going to move from an emotional/moral/ethical position, in a consistent and logical manner that does not "conflict" with life.
So, again, it's not that I demand an explanation from everyone in society, for the subjective views, it is when one attempts to communicate with me, that I have a desire to understand them clearly.
To call oneself an authority on a subject, and not be able to clearly articulate their position, causes me to back off, and question credibility - that has been my relationship with religion.
When someone tells me they have a "fact", and that I should go along with the program, that I will eventually "get it" over time, based on my "diligence" and "faithfulness", and I don't succeed - I am the failure, in such a position. I have shouldered guilt and personal chastisement because of another persons' ignorance/incompetence or lie.
At this point, I am keen to drill straight to the root of anything posed to me as a "fact". I am "skeptical" about what is presented to me, but if it pans out, I have no problem accepting that which can be logically validated, as long as it doesn't conflict with the rest of my knowledge - but that would be quite impossible, in my estimation, facts corroborate facts, they don't cancel/negate.
TIC: ""Facts" vs. "Faith" or "Truth" vs. "Religion", is that where we're at?"
Facts and faith, to me, have to be discussed in terms of "knowledge". And, to me, yes, knowledge is the basis for everything where "inter-personal" communication occurs. Having faith doesn't enable inter-personal "communication", it enables a person to project subjective "possibility" and a particular mental state of reality.
In the end, I have no qualms regarding any position, as long as it is clearly "understood" by the individual, and can be placed in a communicable form when addressed or presented to me.
It is the theological first principles of Christianity that prevent that from happening - it's not by "my" personal design... I didn't wake up one morning, and say I wanted to get rid of "all" religion... I woke up and said; I need to "believe" in what I "understand", and to "understand" something requires me to come to terms with what it means to "know" (have knowledge) of something.
I think, the more interesting and complex question to me, is... can a society exist with total honesty? And, as good an argument one can make either way; I feel greatly disappointed that the institutions that are supposed to tool us with the ability to ferret out deception, are the ones that are not only turning a blind eye, but are "encouraging" the process of deception.
Dave8: "In short, any claim to a success would not be for the "structure" of a religion, it would be due directly to each individual's efforts where religion really wasn't "necessary".
TIC: "I was with you all the way until those last three words."
There is a fundamental principle I have to concede, as undeniable in all aspects, and that is; people first, before any institutionalized structure. It isn't the routine that makes a structure "work" or "correct", it's the potential for people to adapt to a structure to give it the appearance of success.
I asked this question in another thread, and I'll ask it here as well...
When one approaches a religious person, and asks them to describe themselves, how would they typically respond?
1-I am a good person, who just so happens to be a member of "x" religion as a result.
-or-
2-I am a member of "x" religion, who just so happens to be a good person as a result.
Perhaps, we just fundamentally disagree on "emphasis". :-) You know, music is all about numbers... what makes music come alive and make sense... is in the personal emphasis and dynamics we use.
TIC: "At any rate, I learned something from our interaction, and I hope, I can use it to further my own individual goals."
Hopefully, your goals are positive for "all" people, and not just a "select" few.
TIC: "It sounds like you are very satisfied with the reach and impact of your life and how you are able to share your beliefs with others."
I enjoy discussing beliefs, in order to further my understanding of life... if others are enriched; it's all the more rewarding... there's nothing like seeing a light bulb moment in the face of a student of life.
TIC: "I hope someday to do the same. And, as I also am only halfway done with my life maybe we'll have the chance to meet."
I can't deny that possibility, the world is a very small place.
TIC: "BTW, what version of the Bible would you say had the biggest impact on your decision(english version as I don't know any of the historical languages)?"
Sorry, was being sarcastic... the bible has changed over the years, not only in translation into other languages as you suggest, but, in its historical context as well.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
Peace
it wasn't a charity but good enough - a family in the community (Australia has many small communities close togther, rural area's 1/2 hour drive to the city) and the husband/father became disabled in an accident. the church of around 150 people donated, anominisly, around $2000 (i think it might ahve been $3000 actually..) because one of the pastors said their was a family in need and they wanted to help.
Christianity isn't a cult, a religion or a code of live. It is following in the very footsteps of Jesus - something christians in the wetern world have a very hard time doing (japan is heavily influenced by america by the way so i dont class that as being totally separate from the western world).It is something God has been speaking to my heart. To follow him and not a church, a belief, a system. Him alone.
And i have come out of a "cult" too. it wasn't really i cult i think but the symptoms are def there. ex-communication. Stress. Abandonment etc. But that was people who let me down, not God. I know God is real and loving, i cannot ever deny, and i have tried. He has done so much for me and i have seen too much of the supernatural and his love.
also, the questions asked in this "anti-testimony" that you asked your mother - i can answer the one about the tree in the garden ~ What is love if there is no choice? the Tree was a symbol of choice - between God and "knowledge" to become God. There wasn't anythin special about the tree. Adam and Eve's eyes were opened by the sin they commited, not the fruit.(back on track now...) God didn't want Robots. he wanted people who would choose to love him because they want to, not they have to.
Just so you know, I am an 18 year old chick from Australia who has her doubts about almost everything but this - God is there, he is real and loving and he will use me for the good of his kingdom in amazing ways.
I am the author of this testimonial. Dave8 is someone else.
My youngest child is your age and just started college, so I'll give you a break on everything you posted. All I will say is that when I was 18 (31 years ago) I "was sure" of my GOD, too. Now I am sure that all gods are imaginary.
Have a nice day.
There is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge. Like I said, Im going somewhere out whoop whoop where its dangerous so i can learn to completly trust God and know him more- i believe that is why many christians fall away from God. they dont actually DO anything, they dont take a risk and wait for God to come through. We are too comfortable and their isn't much of a difference between christians and non-christians. there is no "cliffs to jump off" and hope God comes through. Christianity has become a "feel-good" religion that we ditch when it no longer feels good.
I grew up in the pentecostal church I have been there, done that with all the feel-good God stuff and it isn't enough! Im diving deeper. God wants more for us than just to "feel his presence, fall on the ground crying and walk away". Jesus said he came to give abundant life. having warm-fussies isn't abundant life! Jesus said to lose your life and you will surely find it. Losing your life means total surrender, not just the parts that suit you or keep you comfortable. it means totally, utterly, complete dependence on him. That's whati aim for. Not what i get from God but what i can do for him. And I tell you, i have never felt more alive than the last few months while God has been calling me to a different life, one the world wont understand - that most the western church wont understand- the church's message is "build relationships with people, let them ask what is different about you, then talk about Jesus" "don't offend people by speaking the name of Jesus, keep it to yourself". I dont wanna live that way anymore.
I'm scared stiff, but i am starting to feel more worried that i will let God down than to worry about people.
Im sure you had simular passions/desires when you were my age but I'm grabbing them with both hands. I KNOW God will pass me by if i dont start taking hold and that is what scares me. And that isn't in a bad way. There is no-one expecting me to follow this - i actually think many will discourage me but Im doing more with my life than being a "nice-person-christian who everyone likes".
J.B. Phillips said something along the lines of this..
The main difference between modern day christians and those we read about in the NT is this. To us it is primarily a presentation, a code of life at best. to them it was a real experience...
.. perhaps if we believe what they believe, we will achieve what they achieved.
Bethany: "There is a difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge."
It's called objective reality and subjective reality. We mentally filter to find the objective facts of life, but we are not always able to filter out our desires, emotional reactions, etc., and those are considered subjective facts.
You are making a case for your subjective reality. Do you understand this?
Do you understand that your heart knowledge /subjective facts need to be clearly communicated so that others can understand your "ideas"?
Do you believe the elements that allow you to form heart/head knowledge, "all" come from your external reality?
Bethany, you and I are "very" much alike, excepting roo crossings, etc. :-) We both hold principles, that we believe allow us to "know" and "interpret" Reality most honestly.
However, there is one principle you hold, that I lack at a minimum - a theistic first principle supporting the notion of a God.
We could agree on everything else in life, but that "one" thing. So, where we find ourselves in discussion many times, is trying to figure out, what compels a person to "establish" a theistic first principle.
If it is a subjective need, then, there is nothing I can say or do, to remove you from believing in your belief. However... if you suggest that God is not based on subjective need, but is based on an objective fact, then I can investigate objective facts, because they are all out in our external reality, in the world.
If you do have a personal and compelling need to establish a God/theistic principle in your life, then just understand why - truthfully. If you can understand why, and accept that, then, you have become honest with yourself, and you can be honest with others on the topic.
The issue for me is that there are a lot of people being "tempted" to accept God, without telling them what it is, or anything.
Some say God is an "idea", or... the most "ideal" in some regard. Is that your take? Does God represent the most "ideal", Love, Joy, Peace, etc?
Do you believe such an "Ideal" is something you experienced in your past, or... something you "expect" in your future?
And a little more difficult... How can you come to "expect" something that you don't "already" understand?
Catholcism = Paganism
Pentecostalism = West African Spiritism, the getting "the holy ghost" is the exact same thing.
So basically your testimony told us you were a pagan (and probably still is).
Perhaps you should change from ExChristian.net to ExCatholicPagan.net or ExPaganbutstillPagan.net, just a suggestion, your antitestimony suggests this would be the correct way to go.
And then you became an agnostic?
And now you "free" people?
Oh and you say you came to some atheist writes, I came from that crowd, wile disgusting creatures and excellent murderers (alot like their father, you know who). Thought I'd tell you so you don't have to hang with this crowd. Atheists are not even near as smart as the think.
And keep this in mind:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
There's the answer to your question. Few find the way that disqualifies the Catholics all you idiots think are Christians, and everything that ever sprang out of that whore.
Oh well no more time to spend on you, you're already made up but you're wrong but you seem to be used to be wrong (would disqualify you from the atheists crowd though, they're right even when they're wrong according to their logic (highly flawed logic, but when you're a village atheist then you're a village atheist)).
Here's some more to make you feel worse:
http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/2007/DebatingWithAtheists_Christians.html
Every flavor of Christian who posts on this site is convinced beyond all doubt that they possess the one true version of the one truth, while all others are in error. Far from convincing me that you have the one version that is correct, you've added support to the idea that all of Christianity is bogus.
Have a nice day.
I have read of your unfortunate experiences with fanaticals, hypocrites, and(if you will pardon the expression) fools. It is obvious to me that you are very intellectual, well learned regarding Biblical scripture, and truly have a passion and zeal for truth that is not equalled by many. It does, however, cause me great sorrow to see that you (and most all of the contributors to this site which I have read) condemn Christianity based on man's hypocrisy. I don't claim to know your "full story," just that which you have chosen to share; but I can not help but find myself wondering if your doubts and "realizations" only occured when you "took your eyes off of God," and placed them on man. I want to be clear that this is in no way intended to be a judgement, but rather a question that I hope you can answer to yourself honestly. Yes, my Bible teaches of both an angry, jealous God, and one of peace, love, and prosperity; some may choose to accept this dual explanation as the ultimate example of hypocrisy, but I would hope that your studies have convinced you that nothing could be further from the truth. You see, the Bible is a progressive revelation of God which contains both an old, and a new covenant. I always find it heart wrenching when I find even the most intellectual of Christians trying to "mesh" together both old and new - it's like mixing sour milk with fresh and expecting it to be "O.K.!" I guess that I am just trying to say that we all understand things based on what we are taught. As you "hopped" from denomination to denomination (what it sounds like to me) you learned new doctrine after new doctrine . . .and they clashed. There are no doctrines in Christianity. Doctrines are created by man . . . hypocrisy is practiced by man . . .Christianity, truth, and love are of God. I do not walk a "perfect walk," but through Christ I have experienced, and do my best to show love. Too many people base their beliefs of what Christianity "is" based on the actions of man - man is not Christianity. You have studied the Bible . . .if I ever have opportunity to share with somebody what Christianity is, I always turn to 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; not a bad goal for how to live if you ask me. But then, who am I to judge, but a humble servant of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Wherever your journey takes you, carry with you this . . .you are loved, and there is always room for another hypocrite to come join our pews - you will be welcomed with open arms.
"Doctrines are created by man"
--
Yes Shawn, and so was your entire bible book as well.
Until god knocks on my front door, in-person, then I have nothing from your god, to tell me what I should believe or not believe.
ATF
Scientology itself is based on control via lying.
"But if Freedom has no anatomy, then please explain how one is going to attain to something which cannot be fully explained. If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line.
This, then, must have boundaries.
If there are boundaries there is no freedom."
L Ron Hubbard--Dianetics 55
"An endless freedom from is a perfect trap, a fear of all things ...
Fixed on too many barriers, man yearns to be free. But launched into total freedom he is purposeless and miserable."
L. Ron Hubbard --The Reason Why
"Scientology is a religious philosophy in its highest meaning as it brings man to Total Freedom."
L. Ron Hubbard --Religious Philosophy and Religious Practice
" When you speak of "The Creator" you are probably speaking of something entirely different than implanted religion. Religion is always different than truth. It has to be,BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them. When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control.
This individual is lying to you because he is trying to control you - because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not "is going to", but "is" lying to you.
Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person who is trying to control you is lying to you. He's got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody anything close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So,you can't control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often Command has this as its greatest weakness.It will try to control instead of leading. The next thing you know,it is lying to the crew.
Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thlng blows up. Well, religion has done this.
Organized religion tries to control, so therefore it must be lying" L Ron Hubbard--Technique 88
Scientology considers itself an organised religion, so therefore scientology lies to control people
I find your site as I Goggled along (before your side I read Richard M. Price's story).
Most of these testimonials are genuine and candid sharing that I cannot ignore.
I am still a practicing Christian, but to be honest, I shared a lot of those doubts you have and in secret, I am a Liberal.
I taught myself critical thinking, logic, the Bible and a lot of other things, and these knowledge and the critical mind of me is calling me to question the faith which calls itself "Orthodox Christianity".
I have a total of 2 friends leaving Christianity for good and I need to see from their perspective. Your site is one that I can be free from judgemental remarks or quarrels in Christian forums.
Many articles are good, but it will be easier for a surfer to look if you grouped them like
(1) From Fundamentalist to Atheiest
(2) From "cocktail" Christianity (like yourself) to Athiest
etc
Best
Virginia
I will keep this short. I have read your reasoning and find that it matches perfectly with what I feel is right for me. I think that gods were created by men for the express purpose of control.
Someone once said (probably from a hilltop somewhere) "If you don't do it God's way (what he meant was my way) then you will go to this bad place forever and be toutured in some horrific fasion forever and ever" etc, etc, etc.. Its all about control.
If there is any kind of "god" to me it is the air, wind, trees, oxygen, food and all of the things that keep me alive. That would make me a ??
Thank you for being brave enough to host a site like this as I am sure you get a real bashing from all of those "forgiving Christians" that always seem to forget that the cornerstone of their faith is supposed to be live and let live, forgive and yet I always seem to find them the 1st to condemn others for being different.. Crusades anyone ? KKK anyone ?
Investigate "Pantheism"
before you bash Christianity - think about what your saying.. because you sound really stupid.
no offense.
re-read your essay, sir.. and you will see how contradictory you really are. go ahead.. i dare you.
If you would be a bit more specific, perhaps a response would be warranted. Until then, have a great day!
"i read the first few paragraphs of your essay...and i have to say; you are making NO SENSE WHAT-SOEVER."
The reason why it does not make any sense to you is because, you are probably too stupid to understand it and you don't have enough education and knowledge to understand it.
It is apparent that you do not know how to use capitalization when you use the letter "I". Which tells me a lot about your education.
Anonymous 12/02/07 Said:
"because you sound really stupid"
It sounds stupid because you are a stupid brainwashed christian.
Speaking for Myself, I'm still discovering new bands after 44 years of record collecting.
"Again I not telling you what to do but the way I see it if you really feel that strong about God not being real or just I would just leave it alone..This site just might provoke him to put something in your life that you really don't want."
Translation: 'Sit down and shut up, apostates!'
Joe, fuck thee off forthwith. We shall not be silenced.
That's fascinating. But I've never had a lifestyle of fornication, drugs, heavy drinking, etc... Oh, and I made my living as a musician for over 23 years or so, so I guess I get what you mean about music. It's just music.
I've been faithfully married to the same woman for 23 years now, and shedding Christianity has brought us closer together than any of the missionary zeal we both once had. Neither of us for a minute would dream of being unfaithful to the other. It's not even a temptation: Yuck!
If you need religion to stave off self-destructive behavior, than I recommend you stay deeply entrenched in it. Survival is more important, ultimately, than the ability to reason.
Or how about this scenario: My wife said she spent the evening with friends, which was true. What she failed to mention was that she also slept with a lover. Now, since she left out an important part of the story, did she tell the truth? It's funny out of all the examples you could have used you picked this one? Yet in your blog back to me you stated " Me or my wife would never for even for a minute think of being unfaithful" I hardly buy thats true for yourself.... maybe it's true... only you know your own mind..But do you really know what your wife is thinking all the time??? If so forget about having people send you ten dollars thur this site..Start another one and charge a big fee for the information leading to how you received this "gift" of knowing what other truly think!!!! wow... P.S. I can't help to wonder how much of this whole site is in fact a way of you "fellowshipping" with other people? Again I too have many times "turned from the things of God" and it's a funny thing if I keep in touch with at least one other friend who was backslidden and really hated/ questioned God it some how made me feel better that I was not alone..How much more when you have the whole world responding to you and sharing to very same thoughts? Kinda comforting right? But as it says in the bible..."in the council of many there is comfort....
The story about my wife cheating on me was made up. It was illustrative to make a point, but has no basis in reality beyond the point being made.
And, you are religious. You have a holy book, a god, certain dogmas you think absolutely necessary, organized meetings, etc. Words that are used frequently in your conversation would probably include worship, prayer, miracle, healing, sin, hell, heaven, judgement, god, angels, demons, etc. That, my grammer¶graph-limited friend, is a religion. You, Joe, are religious.
Oh, and I don't believe in your Satan character, either, so all your ranting on that was lost on me.
It's obvious that you are upset that I think your religion is ridiculous. I suggest you simply get on with your religously delusional life, and let your magical, invisible friend deal with me. Surely IT doesn't need your help, does it?
Bye.
"The wicked don't know peace and you just can't fake it( If you had real peace you would not have a site dedicated to confusion) ...There's only one road and it leads to Calvary..It gets discouraging at times but I know I'll make ..By the saving grace that's over me...
I don't know what my wife is thinking at all times. We've been married for 23 years, however, and dated for three years prior to being married. After all that time we know each other pretty well. We have discussed this particular issue on occasion and assured each other of our devotion to each other. I trust her based on her demonstrated behavior over the past decades. So, I can say with confidence I know her mind on this topic. But, I'm not psychic and do not know every thought going through her mind at every second of every day. If that's your point, you win.
If my loved ones said they had joined a Satanic cult, I'd ask to attend one of their meetings. I've never been to a Satanic cult meeting, nor have I ever heard of one being held anywhere outside of a movie theater or a novel. I've been to synagogue in the past (boring as hell), observed a Buddhist meeting (weird) and I'd like to attend an Islamic service some day, not to mention go to an Indian temple and whatever other opportunity comes my way.
My feeling if they joined such a thing and actually believed in it? I'd think they were idiots, because all that nonsense is imaginary. My kids were home schooled, attended private Christian schools, and then attended public school during high school because by then my wife and I had de-converted. My kids know more about Christianity than any Christian they know in college. But, my kids are atheists. They know not just the apologetics, they know the arguments based on reason. I'm not a bit concerned about them. They can believe whatever they like, but because I de-converted when I did, they know how to think rationally.
Thanks for asking, though.
As far as the rest of your cute post, let me suggest you come back after you pass your 18th birthday. Until then, I think you are correct that this is going nowhere.
You can consider this conversation ended.
Actually, I swear to relieve My own tension, not to shock you. I get rather annoyed when believers wander in here and threaten us with the wrath of their Invisible Friend.
And no, I don't have the Flamingos red disk in My collection.
"when I talk about the things of God..I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about relationship ok"
I've heard that over and over again about how christianity is not a religion, but a relationship.
Joe, I hate to tell you pal, but you cannot have a relationship with an invisible man, who died 2,000 years ago, and has not been seen since he supposedly left all those years ago.
As for Christianity being a relationship, I don't know where you christians get off with your "Goody, Goody, Holier Than Thou, christianity isn't a religion" atttitude.
Joe4Jesus Said:
"I absolutely cringe with someone refers to me as "religious" it always refers to a set way of doing things."
You can deny it all you want Joe, but christianity is a "Religion". Anything that has to do with a "God" is a religion.
Joe(Blows)4Jesus Said:
"This site just might provoke him to put something in your life that you really don't want."
I use to be scared and intimadated by threats like that, now I see them as a joke.
Your invisible friend can fuckin' bring it on as far as I'm concerened.
While you're "Blowing4Jesus" tell him that old Phant said to go fuck himself, eat shit and die.
God/Jesus (Or whatever other names he uses) can kiss my goddamn ass.
Jesus was a loser just like his followers are.
And as far as my anger goes, it's all because of your stupid fucking God and idiot christians like you.
"Jesus was a loser just like his followers are".
Phant,
A 'loser' would be the best case scenario for this jesus, as I truly do not see any evidence such a miracle-man ever walked this planet.
No xtian who has paid us a visit here, has handed us more than a mere morsel of evidence for his existence.
BTW Phant.....Nice to see you posting !!
ATF (who is still waiting for ANY xtian to show me their jesus wasn't just another mythical figurehead of human invention)
P.S to AEB........yes AEB, I had a feeling you were closer-by than was obvious to the untrained eye [g]
"Webmaster"
I have read of your unfortunate experiences with fanaticals, hypocrites, and (if you will pardon the expression) fools. It is obvious to me that you are very intellectual, well learned regarding the Christmas tradition, and truly have a passion and zeal for truth that is not equalled by many. It does, however, cause me great sorrow to see that you (and most all of the contributors to this site which I have read) condemn Christmas based on man's hypocrisy. I don't claim to know your "full story," just that which you have chosen to share; but I can not help but find myself wondering if your doubts and "realizations" only occured when you "took your eyes off of Santa," and placed them on man. I want to be clear that this is in no way intended to be a judgement, but rather a question that I hope you can answer to yourself honestly. Yes, my Christmas records teach of both an angry, jealous St. Nicholas, and one of peace, love, and prosperity; some may choose to accept this dual explanation as the ultimate example of hypocrisy, but I would hope that your studies have convinced you that nothing could be further from the truth. You see, the idea of Christmas is a progressive revelation of Santa Claus which contains both "Miracle on 34th Street", and "The Santa Clause". I always find it heart wrenching when I find even the most intellectual of children trying to "mesh" together both old and new - it's like mixing sour milk and cookies with fresh and expecting it to be "O.K.!" I guess that I am just trying to say that we all understand things based on what we are taught. As you "hopped" from Hannakah to Kwanzaa (what it sounds like to me) you learned new doctrine after new doctrine . . .and they clashed. There are no doctrines in gift giving. Doctrines are created by man . . . hypocrisy is practiced by man . . .Christmas, truth, and love are of Santa Claus. I do not walk a "perfect walk," but because of Santa's List I have experienced, and do my best to show love. Too many people base their beliefs of what Christmas "is" based on the actions of man - man is not Santa. You have studied the Christmas carols . . .if I ever have opportunity to share with somebody what Christmas is, I always turn to “Deck the Halls” verse 2, line 3; not a bad goal for how to live if you ask me. But then, who am I to judge, but a humble servant of Father Christmas, Santa. Wherever your journey takes you, carry with you this . . .you are loved, and there is always room for another hypocrite to come join our carolling - you will be welcomed with open arms.
Take a look at Matthew 16:18. The entire premise of the Reformation is that the gates of hell actually *did* prevail against the apostolic church.
Mat 16:18 narrows down your chances of finding legitimate Christianity down to 2 churches-- Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic. (how dare me suggest something so outlandish!)
I know this sounds like flame bait, but I don't know of any way of tactfully saying it: Faiths that are based off from warm-squishy feelings are doomed to failure. The fact is that life isn't 100% warm or even squishy.
I can't imagine that God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom would reveal himself by manifesting himself through people flopping around on the floors like dying fish. In my limited studies, I never once got the idea that people acted like that when they heard Jesus speak or were healed.
You have a right to ask real questions, and to expect real answers.
If you decide to give it one more chance, dig in with your head before you put in your heart. Be skeptical. Stay away from Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Stay away from so-called non-denomination or prophet churches.
Let the truth come naturally, and don't try so hard to believe the lies. Most of all, don't let someone else's strong belief in a lie influence your ability to reason.
For what it is worth, pray for me while you're on your journey, too.
Best regards,
-Mark
All the best to you, and thank you for sharing from the depths of your heart. I too have searched, and search... Just wanted to recommend 2 books to you, "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl, a Jewish psychologist who was in a concentration camp in WWII, and has offered psychological insights on the meaning of life for all people, religious or not, and another book written by people who converted to Catholicism, which I found fascinating, and a very good read (link below). all the best to you, your immediate family, and your grandchildren,
Stephen
http://www.amazon.com/New-Catholics-Contemporary-Converts-Stories/dp/0824508424/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201841923&sr=1-8
Besides, original Christianity disappeared toward the end of the First Century, when the Jerusalem Church, run by James the brother of Jesus, disappeared from the planet.
The Pauline version wasn't exactly sanctioned by James, so Catholicism is nothing more than a Roman perversion of the one true gospel preached by the Jewish Jesus.
Have a great day, but I suggest you don't bother trying to convert me. You'll be wasting your time.
I was raised an atheist. I have dabbled with Christianity.
I am currently a deist, I just can't believe in a universe without a creator, I've tried.
As for the bible it looks like a collection of stories written by authors who were seeking some kind of truth/wisdom. Christianity is a money making scheme based on fear as far as I can tell.
The search for truth is just hard.
A deist traditionally believes there is a creator that exists outside of this Universe, who set it in motion and then left it alone.
I was never able to understand, how anyone could ever logically suggest that something existed outside of the Universe they live in, except on blind "faith".
Everything we touch, smell, experience becomes part of our natural "relationship", with no separation.
I can understand how someone may perceive something "greater" than themselves in "potential", I just choose to call that greater potential - "Nature", of which I happen to have a very close relationship with.
I don't perceive there to be any reason to worship something for which I am an integral part of. "Rejecting" that relationship, so that I could entertain my "faith", and opening up the conceptual possibility of something "beyond" my Reality, seemed not much different than most "religions".
Deism, to me was a response to religious politics, and the controversy over "revealed" religion in its inception. It kept some tenets of religion, and recreated the personality of a God to be impersonal, which of course solves the problem with God not responding to humans in suffering.
A Deist and Christian would agree that a God does indeed exist outside this Natural Universe, but disagree on personality traits. It's a connection, that I see no evidence for, and something that begs the question; if a Deist or Christian can speak about things beyond this Universe, by rejecting their Reality; then, where does such speculation end?
The Deist doesn't go any further, than "initial" revelation, which provided them with the concept of a God external to the Universe, while the Christian religions, believe in a second coming, modern day apostles, Popes, etc., and ongoing "messages" of a God.
Again, I dumped all my beliefs, and rebuilt from the ground up, and found I had no reason to accept an initial premise/revelation to make sense out of my life and Nature.
Deism fell as an alternative belief for me, the second I dropped the Christian belief, in an "external" Universe with a God.
However, to each their own.
Web Master although i applaude the fact that you stand for what you believe i do not agree with your saying that "Christianity is just another man-made, phony cult - that's all.While touting itself as the answer to man's ultimate questions, all it really does is enslave the mind." i say this only because i dont think you can make that judgment call, if it didnt work for you thats fine, and i hope you find what will, but i do believe it is not repectful to say that and not true for all just you and those who also have come across that road, but there are many who havnt and would believe that other religions were that way, would that make them true? i dont think so. but anyway what i really wanted to bring to light is that none of us know truth we only know what we hear, feel, see, and precieve as truth, so i do think in alot of ways Web Master has been respectful, honest, and open; and i think thats awesome. i pray that religion will no longer be a hold on you but that you will find what your looking for,
(for Everybody) dont get to caught up in finding factual scientific undoutable truth about religion cause i belive like ive said before we will never find it until we die because in a lot of ways religion is based on faith not evidence. thats why its called "Belief" and not "Know", because we belive but we dont know, we only think we know. so yeah thats all i wanted to say and ive learned a long time ago that arguing about religion doesnt solve a thing, in fact its the very thing that causes division and wars, and we really cant blame that on just followers of the christian faith, so im not going to argue with anyone if you have a comment you want to make feel free we all have a right to our own opinions which is why im glad this site exsits for the most part
Do you have any suggestions as to how I can let go of the anger I hold toward christianity? I recently went back to college to advance my degree and just finished a world religions class that was offered online. Many of my postings angered christians and I realized that my anger is far more then I was aware. Perhaps time will heal all.
Thank you for this website!
However, I can confidently say that as with all things, time heals all.
Feel free to hang out here and consider joining the forums. If you need to rant and rave, this is the place for it. Most of us understand completely.
I look at the first of comments to appear and I'm disappointed at how many closed minded religious fanatics are on here simply to tell you that there is no point to your site and you are of course misguided. How absolutely infuriating and incredibly offensive. If you think this site has no point then why are you on it and why are you posting a comment.
Your site and your thoughts are a delightfully intelligent meal. I found your thoughts to parallel those of many and your reasoning's exceptionally valid. I could easily go on a angry rant as to why religion, particularly Christianity, is not only offensive but given the history of torment and wars, wrath and hate, the equivalent of a large and very organized terrorist cult. I will have to work very hard to keep such disgusting values, ie. condemning homosexuals, supporting violence and war, making women unequal, away from my future children. Luckily Christianity is dying out quickly in Europe and parts of America. Hopefully with the new generations, which are much more accepting and much more educated, it will become either a thing of the past, or will reform to be more of coming together as one world and one love. That being said, someone stated would the world really be a better place if Christians didn't believe in god? How about if religion didn't exist? Well it would certainly end thousands of years of violance, intolerance, ignorance, meaningless deaths and wrongful persecution just to name a few. But wait? What about all the good things Christians do! They do charity work and donate money, spread love, encourage good morals, just to name a few. But what if people can do that WITHOUT god? What if people can do that on their own by taking responsibility for themselves and believing in humanity? I know this is possible because I do. And many of the people I meet when I'm volunteering do. And people I see on the streets daily do. So why aren't we encouraging that more, instead of spreading the word that regardless of how good you are, you are nothing without God.
Isn't it interesting that the more education a person receives and the more they are able to think freely, the less the likelyhood of that becoming or remaining a believer. I am grateful for your site as I'm sure many others are. I will continue to read it often. Whether you chose to believe or not believe everyone has the right to ask questions, seek answers and make a choice that feels right as opposed to just going with the crowd because you are told to do so.
Thank you again, keep this site going. Have a wonderful day.
I share your optimism that one day humankind will mature beyond the need to childishly chase insist on the existence of imaginary gods and goddesses, but I fear it will finally happen long after you and I have left the planet.
Regardless, and again, thanks.
I guess that leaving the RCC before your final religious vows is as bad as running off at the altar! In fact, I was supposed to be a spiritual bride of Christ and I ditched Jesus at the altar! The stunt I pulled makes me an even bigger spiritual goof than your run of the mill born-again-born-again….and again. LOL!
The Opus Dei is probably one of the most fanatical branches of the RCC known for its misogyny, elitism, strict adherence to statutes and (what they don’t tell you when you are a wide-eyed novice) the mortification of the flesh. I am told by those in the know that since I am a baptized Catholic, I cannot lose my lottery ticket, the indelible mark of those who are baptized Catholic, but that I am in mortal sin and backslidden and excommunicated. They look at me as if I just swallowed two live puppies, a whole baby seal and was coming for their cat.
You are right: it is hard for friends and family to understand why I left even after I showed them the bruising and cuts from the use of the cilice. Their response is: “You just didn’t understand Christ, Christianity or Christ’s love for you. You need a course in Christology.” Protestant friends remark, “You just got caught up in works theology. You need to accept Christ as your personal savior or you will spend eternity in hell which is worse than being chased by a pedophilic Pentecostal preacher with one good arm and a decimated colon.”
I am a free-spirit, free-thinking, happy, atheist and I will risk their “hell” for an infinitesimal amount of freedom and ownership of my will, my mind, my body and my desires. If that damns me, than so be it.
Thank you for this site. I really don’t eat cats.
BB
Is this the evil "cilice" that you are speaking of?
http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=16367
They make is sound like it was an 'option' to wear this device, but it doesn't sound like they gave you much choice in the matter?
They also insist this contraption doesn't draw blood...yeah right, as long as you never move or touch it.
ATF (Who wonders why it's okay to eat-jesus, but not a mere cat)
YES!!!! You have found the very devil and my slumber will not be peaceful tonight.
Optional....my Texas scootin' bootie!!! You were pressured into wearing it once they trusted you to keep your mouth shut and do what you were told. Fasting was also not "optional" nor were the vigils at the chapel. Everything is white-washed for them.
ATF, I even went to Wikipedia to checkout their take on the Opus Dei and it seems that whoever wrote the article has no clue as to what goes on. I set up an account with wikipedia and am planning to go postal on their article. The contraption DOES draw blood and bruise and welt...it depends how much pain you want to offer Christ...are you "Catholic lite" or a "real" Catholic...Uggggh...
ATF, my liver is about to burst!!!! LOL!!! Thanks for the info!!!
BB
Sorry about your upcoming non-slumber tonight :(
Given Wikipedia's nature, it shouldn't be too difficult to put what you KNOW to be true, on their site. Please, let us know how that goes and share whatever you land up writing etc..
Awhile back someone had posted a video link here, that shows the annual pain extremes some catholic faithful will go to, to demonstrate their faith in jesus.
Some try to 'play' out the whole cruise-of-fiction torture scenario, short of actually dying for christ.
We sometimes get told by xtian visitors, that jesus must be real, or these ancient faithful followers from the bible wouldn't have made the sacrifices they did for him.
Well, given that we can see today, what some of these faithful will put themselves through, on just faith alone in this invisible jesus, should it surprise us that a few back in those days would have done similar things for their beliefs.
Such personal sacrifices are not proof of anything supernatural; other than a huge need for some supernatural mental therapy sessions.
ATF (Who wonders if heavenly therapist use a cloud, or the more standard couch, for their therapy sessions?)
As a school librarian, I ALWAYS tell my students NOT to use Wikipedia. If they hand in a research project and list Wikipedia as a source, they get points deducted and they know it. I should KNOW better, and practice what I preach. I should just ignore Wikipedia altogether and let them post what they want but so many people use it as a source.
According to Wikipedia, some "reporters" state that the accusations against the Opus Dei are "largely exaggerated." B.S.!!!
I am not sure they have investigated the Opus Dei's nefarious schemes in Latin America or seen how this cult takes advantage of people. They are known for chasing money and literally writing themselves into last wills and testaments. In Mexico, they own numerous homes in the exclusive areas of Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey. We are talking about real estate that rivals that of NYC or San Francisco. They also own ranches such as Montefalco for spiritual retreats. The Montefalco ranch was a huge swindle and the legitimate heirs are still fuming at the Opus Dei's ability to convince a dying woman to leave them the ranch. Montefalco is absolutely stunning. The funny thing is that you cannot play hardball like that in Mexico without eventually running into drug money. I seriously doubt that the Opus Dei makes a "moral" distinction between "legitimate" money/fortunes and "illegitimate" drug money/fortunes. All fortunes are good as long as they are up for grabs.
As to what believers put themselves through for Jesus...Today, in the Year of Our Lord 2008: crucifixions are alive and well in Mexico and in the Philippines. There is a town in Mexico, Taxco, that has an annual blood-fest the week leading up to Easter Sunday: Holy Week. The penitents flagellate themselves silly, carry enormous rolls of thorns on their backs, and then run to the local clinic for antibiotics and medical care. Healthcare workers at the rural clinic get rather upset at spending their scant resources on these idiots. Spain and Latin America have a history of asceticism within their religious traditions which is why mortification of the flesh is not seen as abusive or dangerous or just flat out weird.
I will update you on my Wikipedia venture. I've never participated in Wikipedia so I'm still learning the ropes...but I plan to do a bit of damage on that Opus Dei page.
Thanks, ATF!
BB
With all research, it should be cross-checked with other sources. I find WikIpedia useful as a starting point but I would never use it as my first scource.
In my research, I have found Wikipedia, particularly, useful, in pointing out the controversies of some of the leaders in christianity. Other encyclopedias don't seem to go into too much detail about the wrong-doings, of such people. And it is constantly, updated.
I, usually, check the footnotes and try and obtain original sources such as newspaper articles or TV news coverage. I think Wikipedia is a handy tool, but should not be taken as the magical deities honest truth -- you got to do your homework.
--S.
I found a youtube video that addresses these strange xtian rituals you speak about here.
However, do me a favor and do not watch it, if it will cause to lose sleep, ok.
For everyone else, watch this at your own mental risk !!
As our WM Dave likes to say, this video is NOT WORK FRIENDLY.
Heck, it's not friendly period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB5PUF_Hrhk
ATF (Who thinks Jesus was just a overly-devoted BDSM participant [g])
My.
Dog.
What horrible contraptions.
I'm honestly at a loss for words.
How about....OUCH!!!! The cilice is more painful than a nipple piercing.
LOL...
BB
Ouch! I wouldn't know how either of those feel. How is it compared to a tatto?
As far as cats go... please eat mine. :)
Amen, Barbiebrains! :)
Advice well taken. The problem is that I am furious because their take on the Opus Dei is lacking in essential details. I have done my homework and I am going to correct them. Hopefully, we can raise their grade from an F to a C-.
BB
Well, if your insight and intellect is any indication, I'm sure the grade will be catapulted into "A" territory.
Good luck to you
--S.
ATF:
The video was very difficult to watch but interesting. I witnessed similar blood-fests in Mexico...the choreography is identical. You can pull the video apart and analyze it on so many levels...The RCC priests were creepier than the Jesus-addled penitents. I live in a predominantly Southern Baptist town in Texas with one Assemblies of God Church. This AG church put on a spectacle one very, very, cold December day: they had a bizarre "drive through live nativity scene" AND they had put up three crosses. I wondered what the three crosses were all about during the Xmas season. It made no sense. One night while driving home (10:30 pm) I saw cars lined up to go through the "drive through nativity" but I also noticed three adolescent boys wearing nothing but shorts, up on the crosses. No, they were not "crucified", of course. The crosses had steps so you could climb up. The boys were part of a representation of the life of Christ....I promptly called Child Protective Services because NO parent in their right MIND should make their adolescent boy strip down in the cold December air and participate in the spectacle. The religious wackiness is not exclusive of the Third World.
BB
I have to wonder if all the nutty (or sadistic) things these xtians do, they do in part just to try and capture the attention of an 'absent' jesus/god.
Obviously (to us) there is no jesus answering prayers, performing any miracles, or even stopping the non-religious from denying his existence; (sometimes loudly) etc..
Think of a small child trying to get their Mother's attention (especially when she is on the phone..LOL). They start out small in their means to grab her attention but when their attempt fails to draw her attention, they will escalate their methods until finally they get some attention ----of one kind or another.
Now, if a xtian who is certain that jesus is real, prays silently to this jesus time and time again and gets no reply, then they would probably conclude that jesus didn't get their message.
So they would then take it up a level and verbalize the next set of prayers.
When that also fails, they might ask other xtians to pray to jesus on their behalf.
Again the praying fails, so they might now move up another level, and ask their minister to have the congregation, during Sunday service, pray to jesus on this person's behalf.
What... still can't get the attention of jesus.
Well, perhaps some old fashioned fasting thrown in for good measure might show god this person is very serious about their 'need'.
So the xtian does some fasting, which of course is ineffective, so then what, fasting for a longer period of time perhaps.
So in this video, what do we perhaps have going on here.
Well, besides folks who might actually 'enjoy' this religious form of torture, we very well may have people here who tried every means they knew to get god's attention and concluded, not that god was absent from the universe, but that god must really want something drastic from them; as a show of 'faith' perhaps.
What I would like to know here, is whether these believers that went through this torture, ever heard back from jesus or whether they will need to do something even more drastic in the future to gain his attention.
Conclusions:
1. Prayer Fails (Obviously!!)
2. Xtians not capturing god's attention, can at times, be much like toddlers who can't get Mom's attention.
3. Being nailed up on a cross, doesn't put you closer to the imaginary overhead jesus in the sky. It does however, leave one scarred for life from the attempt.
ATF (Who wonders if anyone has done any studies on the after-effects of these cruel rituals, such as a major depression setting in from god's lack of response?)
BB
The questions are: how exactly do you know god has a plan for us and what is that plan?
--S.
I wanted to thank you for your site and comment on one of the first replies that you got way back when you started it about what is your purpose in creating this site and why do people need encouragement when de-converting from Christianity. I would not expect a devout Christian to understand this concept because they are still so deeply brainwashed and simply cannot see why those of us who are trying to extricate our minds from the maddness would need encouragement. The truth is, what we are doing is the equivalence of leaving a cult. For those of us brought up in it from a very early age, marinated in it at school, home and church, it formed the underlying beliefs that we came to have about ourselves, most of those beliefs being inherently painful as well as destructive (i.e., that we were born "bad", that we are unworthy of the love of who/what gave us our lives, that we will burn in hell if we can't accept certain bizarre stories like a virgin getting pregnant and a man walking on water, and ultimately getting up after he was dead and walking away from his tomb...the lunacy is endless). All of this on top of the underlying theme that if we DO start thinking outside the box, then we will suffer for eternity...Good GRIEF. Of COURSE people need support to get through that! So on behalf of someone who is grateful to have this place to come in order to get de-programmed, thank you very much for the courage it took to speak your truth and to give the rest of us a place to find ours :-) Sam
--S.
It seems to me Dave, your testimony just says you don't have all the answers.
I believe honest inquiry will lead to the truth. For me, the research I've done wit the experiences I've had, with prophecies being fulfilled, with the historical and scientific evidence I know of, overwhelmingly point to the truth of Who Jesus is. That is the most important question I feel. Who is God, how is one right with Him (if it matters) I think doubt is a part of life, and part of being human, and a good question is a doorway to good answers, but I'm sure you can agree that real fortitude is needed to search through the information and, strength in heart & endurance is needed to to find some of these answers.
(not saying you haven't, just saying that there may be things you haven't read)
and I understand the support needed when, anyone is undergoing a foundational paradigm shift.
I agree about "How is it I can say I am filled with the Holy Spirit, I love GOD more than all, I am being made into a new creation, and yet still find studying Christianity to be dull?" That is a real shame. and I see how all of these things contributed to your being out there with few answers to hold on to.
I will say one more thing: You know it's hard once someone has made up his mind for or against something to retain a humble attitude, and remain open to all truth. Because the Truth is not threatened by more truth, and light. Perhaps its not too late?
Sincere kind regards,
a believer in the Lord Jesus
However, I wanted to be sure of the truth more than I wanted anything else. I eventually became willing to risk all for the sake of truth.
You said, "It's hard once someone has made up his mind for or against something to retain a humble attitude, and remain open to all truth."
Perhaps your comment is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black?
You also said, "It seems to me Dave, your testimony just says you don't have all the answers. "
Having a "belief" is not having an answer. The reality of life is that none of us has all the answers to anything.
Peace.
Perhaps you would take your own advice? Or maybe you already know your own version of the "Truth" and feel that people need to ultimately discover you were right,
If so its just the same arrogance beneath a polished veneer of civility.
Believer,
I'm going to suggest here, that it is you who have closed off your mind to seeking the truth of reality, not us. I don't know of anyone here who isn't open to credible evidence, even if it would support crazy supernatural ideas.
The ongoing problem is that no such evidence is ever presented to us to inspect...NONE!!
Having an open mind that can be easily swayed by lame evidence, is the folly of those who reside in a world of make-believe. Such make-believe worlds offer comfort to the believer and perhaps some social ties, but little else.
You make an assertion here that you've done your homework and found historical and scientific evidence to support this jesus character.
You also suggest that there are some prophecies that were fulfilled as well.
We've heard these claims a million times before and while they sound good on the surface, once we ask for a xtian to bring that evidence to the table here, their evidence crumbles like cookie upon inspection.
However, you sound so sure of your evidence and research, that I'll ask you now to present it to us for inspection.
If your evidence is worthwhile then I assure you it won't be dismissed from our being closed minded.
Just keep in mind, we've seen plenty of this so called evidence before and I find it hard to believe that you have anything unique to offer in that regard.
So fire away, god believer !!
ATF (Who believes he is far more open minded, than any xtian alive)
As for me, I haven't seen anyone on this thread, or any other, suggest that they "know everything". If you can reference any such comment, I'd be curious to have a look at it. If not, then you erect a strawman.
A believer: I strive to live in intellectual honesty in every area of my life...
I see. So, "every area" of your life. Okay. let's take the area of reality. Is one being "intellectually honest" when/if they harbor a belief that talking snakes, talking vegetation, swimming hammers, virgin births, zombies, witchcraft, etc., all have a referent in reality? 'Just curious.
A believer: I believe honest inquiry will lead to the truth. For me, the research I've done wit the experiences I've had, with prophecies being fulfilled...
Huh?.."prophecies"? You mean...you mean..."God" knows the future? Now seriously.....will you tell me, with a straight face, that "God" KNOWS FOR CERTAIN what "God" will be doing next friday @ 2:35 P.M.? Think about it.
'Careful how you answer; it's a trick-question.
A believer: I will say one more thing: You know it's hard once someone has made up his mind for or against something to retain a humble attitude, and remain open to all truth. Because the Truth is not threatened by more truth, and light. Perhaps its not too late?
As for the Christian biblegod? Yes, too little; too stupid; too mean; too repulsive; too petty.....too late.
As for a generic, invisible, personal "god"---no, ' not "too late".....just show me some credible, objective evidence for such a thing, and I'll have to reconsider my default position.
Your story sounds almost as if I wrote it myself. I was shocked when I stumbled across this site and read your anti-testimony. I also grew up in Ashtabula, my parents still live in Orwell.
I went to a seminary though. I am now a psychology major.
I am not sure where you live now..I assume in PA still. I would love to get together with you over a beer and talk. I was literally shocked with what I read b/c it was my story (aside from Japan) all over again.
I am sure you have read it already, but Sam Harris The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation are brilliant.
You can contact me directly using the contact form at http://exchristian.net/message.php
It sounds very similar to my own! Hoping to submit my ex-testimony soon.
I'm very thankful for this website -- enjoying reading all the posts.
Thank you!
MsShorTee
Thank you for allowing this website. I envy the folks who have gone through the religious path and have reached the truth on their own. Self actualization is perhaps the best way to describe this. Open dialogue is great for those who need and seek encouragement. For the fanatics, it doesn't matter; we and your entire website are simply dismissed. There is a always a phony verse or some biblical story to justify their way of ignoring the reality. I always thought, the gravity exists, and it is not for anyone to vote on. Those who never believed in the existence of gravity, will never admit the existence of cults. Good like my friend.
I have been "blessed" by your site for some years now and experienecd a fresh "baptism" after reading your testimony - my experience (except for formal theological training), parallels yours in many aspects.
Thank you for sharing as you did - you are yet another icon of REASON that many of us can look up to.