.: posted 7/30/2005 ::: by webmdave :::   

 boomSLANG wrote:

"First, I'll point out how lame your arguments are, then I'll tell you the only real reason that Christianity is false."

Okay, please enlighten us further.....so, you're either, A) a non-Christian who is pro-Jesus(?), but yet, a person who has deduced the same conclusion that non-believers deduce....e.g. "Christianity is false"; or B) a person who really DOES believe that Christianity is the "one Truth", yet, you won't admit it on this "cheezy" website, because of course, you'd look like a complete idiot because of the fact that you just put a lot of energy into refuting somebody elses non-Christian arguments, but at the same time, you, yourself, have deduced that "Christianity is false".

Nice "change up"....maybe you should pitch, instead of bat? lol

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Anony ended with "Ahhhhhhh. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. My job here is done."

Such arrogance is usually the harbinger of fallacious arguments, and Anonymous did not disappoint. Let's go through them...

10. Anony: "You're assuming the 4 records have to match exactly in order to be true,..." That's a straw man. Please point to someone making this claim. You can't, because it's absurd. What skeptics claim is that the discrepancies are *substantive*, and indicate redacting of previous stories, which makes them fundamentally incompatible on some points. The late addition of the ending of Mark was one such attempt to harmonize stories that exhibited a fundamental conflict.

9. Anony: "...It could just as easily be argued that God/Jesus used this motif to underline the fact that he is superior to all other gods." Just as easily? Then let's hear you articulate that argument. Let's hear why god would chose to follow numerous motifs of more ancient religions, such as being born of a divine-human union in humble circumstances (e.g. in a cave or a stable), being celebrated by "wise men", escaping the slaughter of innocents, spreading his message via a small cadre of disciples, being brutally put to death, rising again, etc. etc. What was the wisdom of following this same pattern, and even adopting more ancient monikers, such as "the light", "the lamb", etc. How does that show that Jesus was in any way superior? (Are you going to use C. S. Lewis's "true myth" apologetics?)

8. Anony: "If no references to a man from historians in his century disproves the man’s existence,..." Stop there. That's another straw man. Please point to somebody who claims that this *disproves* the existence of Jesus. Why do you misrepresent what is being said? Is it to create an easy target, perhaps? Anony: "There were people living in his century who were certain of his existence (to the point of martyrdom)..." There were people who were also certain of the existence of Hercules and other mythical figures. Interestingly, there are numerous examples of mythical figures who were "invented" roughly a generation after their purported deaths. Such is the nature of myths. As for the martyrs, much of what you claim is probably apocryphal. Which martyrs, specifically, do you have in mind, what do you claim they died for, and what is your evidence for your claim? That which is not apocryphal does not argue directly for the *existence* of Jesus, but for the existence of *believers*. Yet, there have always been ardent believers (even to the point of martyrdom) in clearly fictitious ideas.

7. Anony: "Duh. ...those stories are there to prove Jesus was the Messiah. (Whether they actually prove that is another point, but they certainly don't DISPROVE anything.)" Showing that the stories are of midrashic origin does two things: 1) It removes one of the most prevalent arguments *for* the existence and divinity of Jesus, and 2) it demonstrates that very large and crucial elements of the story were INVENTED. If the central themes are undermined, then how much credibility does the rest of the story have?

6. Anony: "...You're implying that Jesus believed the Old Testament like a slobbering fundamentalist..." Another straw man. Can't hit those targets unless you pump them up with absurd extrapolation, can you? The gospel writers have Jesus make numerous claims that the old testament in still in effect: Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." While there are clearly also verses to the contrary, there is little doubt that the Jesus character supported, observed, and believed in the basic tenets of the Jewish scripture. To the extent that that scripture can be shown to consist of inconsistent, absurd, or plagiarized stories (e.g. Noah's flood), it also undermines the veractiy of the Jesus character.

5. Anony: "Learn something about ancient literature. In the Jewish mind, a “genuine” prophecy was hidden within another story -- that's what made them prophecies: they could be taken out of context and applied to a completely different situation." No, you are confusing midrash with prophecy. The practice of midrash consisted of "mining" scripture for verses that could be put to different uses. While those uses sometimes included prophecy, it was much broader than that. But what undermines your argument here is that the Jews did not recognize the prophecies that the Christians claimed, and in almost all cases have cogent arguments for why they ARE NOT prophecies, midrash or not. Furthermore, the very-clearly articulated messianic prophecies that the Jews DID recognize where NOT FULFILLED by Jesus, hence the invention of the non-scriptural idea of the second coming.

4. Anony: "...prophecies in ancient literature were intended to be pulled out of context." You are essentially taking the "dual meaning" position; i.e. that multiple meanings were hidden within the text. What evidence do you have for that? Just because there was an established practice to mine such verses (e.g. midrash), that in itself does not mean that they were true prophecies. The more parsimonious explanation is that it was nothing more than a ploy to extract more meaning than was actually present. Anony: "If this verse doesn't really apply to Jesus, it means that Matthew and Luke were in error, but errors are to be expected in a document written by humans decades after the fact, as well as the introduction of certain myths." And your point is....

3. Anony: "Here's where textual critics always screw themselves...." And here's where you're going to introduce another straw man. Anony: "They point out this quote like it was reported that night on the evening news,..." See! Anony: "...But the gospels were written decades (at least) after the death of Jesus, and probably after the death of the apostles whose names they bear...." Yes, and... Anony: "...Now think about this for a minute, because you’ve totally screwed yourself." Here comes another straw man. Anony: "Why would a document written in the second century include a verse that seems to nullify everything (i.e. that Jesus will return in the lifetimes of his listeners)?" Because it was part of an older oral or written tradition; elements of one or more already-existing stories, perhaps about Jesus, and perhaps about other hero figures. Anony: "...In fact, these verses are among the strongest arguments that the gospels were in fact written just a few years after the death of Jesus,..." Not at all. They could have been written arbitrarily long after the purported event by weaving together various stories that existed in oral form. Anony: "...UNLESS these words were intended to have an allegorical meaning. Oooh, now that's a stretch, trying to imagine Jesus saying something non-literal." Another straw man. Nobody is insisting that everything be taken literally; but at the same time, statements should be afforded their clear and direct meaning whenever possible, rather than imposing obscure interpretations or fanciful word meanings.

2. Anony: "Duh again. Mary was a descendant of David also. Mary and Joseph both would have been." What do you base that on? Why is the ancestry of Jesus spelled out in great detail but not that of Mary? Anony: "Actually, however, it can be argued that the Old Testament never specifies a literal bloodline connection." That's an old argument. It's not credible because it runs counter to Jewish tradition.

1. Anony: "If breaking the OT law was a sin, then Jesus sinned more than twice. He obliterated it on several occasions...." The gospel writer also have him defending the Old Testament law, so you can pick your verses and take whatever stand you please on this. From my perspective, the entire question as to whether Jesus was envisioned by the Paul and the gospel writers as completely abolishing the old law or not is murky, so I will not argue this one way or the other.

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

@Jim, much better argument the second time around, sir. I think we could go round and round about some of my alleged straw men, but your thoughts were much better articulated than the original post. I still don't agree with you, of course, but I found your answers interesting.

@boomslang: I was unintentionally vague in my closing. To be clear, I am pro-Jesus, but I don't think following his teachings has anything to do with "accepting him in your heart" or being traditionally Christian. I don't think he came to establish a new religion. Most Christians would emphatically say that I am not one, yet I find inspiration and comfort in many of Jesus' teachings.

I think it's a shame that so many ex-Christians rightly get disgusted with the church and religion, and then reject also the one who shared their indignation.

This is a good topic. I'd like to hear more from you guys about it.

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Jim Arvo wrote:
Anony ended with "Ahhhhhhh. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. My job here is done."

Such arrogance is usually the harbinger of fallacious arguments, and Anonymous did not disappoint. Let's go through them...

Dan says: I agree with you Jim. All through his post he was assuming an air of intellectual superiority to contributors on this site, and I kept getting the feeling that he was self massaging his ego. This behavior always seems strange to me, especially when these people are so intent on being anonymous. I suspect, in this particular example though that he is just not smart enough to figure out how to come up with a screen name.

I will admit that I was expecting something from him that would give some indication that he had read more than one or two contributors to this site, but about half way through his post I came to the conclusion that his only purpose was to try to convince himself that he is as smart as he thinks he is.

After you so thoroughly destroyed his attempt at stroking his own ego, I feel a little sorry for him.

I will be the first to admit that I am no scholar, but I know one when I see one, and I have seen at least a hundred on this site who I would put my money on, if pitted against THIS anonymous.
Dan (Ex Christian sympathizer)

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Anony said "@Jim, much better argument the second time around, sir. I think we could go round and round about some of my alleged straw men, but your thoughts were much better articulated than the original post. I still don't agree with you, of course, but I found your answers interesting."

That was a very mature reply. Thank you. I'll take that over napalm any day. :-)

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anonymous said: "I was unintentionally vague in my closing."

No, it's not necessarily that you were vague, it's that your conclusion seemed to conflict with your own argument. But more to the point, you came across like 99.9999% of the Christians who stumble in here.....interestingly, the same people from whom you seemingly disassociate yourself---yet, your demeanor and approach is EXACTLY the same---that being, that you act like you possess some kind of "special knowledge" that none of us Ex-Christians do, and that those "people who claim to be Christians" are misinterpreting Jesus' message(s), therefore, "they are a religion".

Anonymous: "To be clear, I am pro-Jesus, but I don't think following his teachings has anything to do with 'accepting him in your heart' or being traditionally Christian."

Like I just said---you have your OWN thoughts as to why you think that the way YOU follow Jesus' teachings is the "right" way. Well, no shit...everybody who is "pro-Jesus" does. This is proof positive that the Holy Bible is one big subjective "grab-bag". On the other hand, Anonymous, if you think that the church's teachings of Jesus are distorted and/or corrupt, I'm all ears as to what you think the "real" teachings are, and to how you arrived at your conclusion, especially since there is ZERO first-hand sources to go by.

Anonymous: "I don't think he came to establish a new religion. Most Christians would emphatically say that I am not one, yet I find inspiration and comfort in many of Jesus' teachings."

Sure, and again, you can pick and choose Jesus' alleged teachings "buffet style" and find your OWN inspiration in them. So what? Please provide OBJECTIVE reasoning that what inspires YOU is something that should UNIVERSALLY inspire all of humanity. Until you do, I'll just be inspired by humanity.

posted: April 28, 2006 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Anonymous: "I think it's a shame that so many ex-Christians rightly get disgusted with the church and religion, and then reject also the one who shared their indignation."

Is religion the product of the indignant ones' teachings, or... is the indignant one, the product of religious teaching?

Here's a hint; religion may have been the product of the indignant ones' teachings (if he lived), at the time he would have walked the earth... From his death, forward to today, the "indignant one" has been painted by religiously rabid clergy, competing emperors, politicians, etc., etc.

There no longer exists a "real christian", as there no longer exists a non-biased, semi-objective guide of the indignant one, to follow. The indignant one "died" in all aspects, from physical to philosophical/theological, the day he in theory was crucified. As a matter of fact, claiming that the person being presented as "indignant" is based on the "faith" one places in the words in a book, written by anonymous authors for the most part.

Who's to say they were indignant, one claim is just as good as another - unless someone has a first hand account. The early Roman Church, knew this, and swear that their roots go all the way back to St. Peter, so obviously they have the most accurate religion, promoting the most accurate view of the "indignant" one - Roman Catholicism.

Its a shame, that many christians or non-christians believe they can actually "know" the nature and nurture of a person in great detail, who in theory lived two thousand years ago. A self-claimed christians' faith, fully relies on the number of subjective fingerprints that have had access to modify, manipulate, and alter their bible. The stronger the claim of "faith", the stronger the conviction one must have in anonymous/unknown authors to portray ancient events in a perfectly "objective" manner.

Ockham's razor comes to mind, the fewer links between a premise and a conclusion, the stronger the claim. The most accurate knowledge/conclusion, therefore, comes from no statement, but from direct observation of a persons' acts, as a person "is" what they do. Therefore, one who lived at T-0 (T=time of "indignant ones'" birth) would of course have the most accurate assessment, those who lived T+2000 without one personal observation, and the mass of humanity over that period who have had the ability to "influence" that information, totally renders the biblical statements effete.

posted: April 29, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

First, I'm no scholar.

Second, I don't know why I was accused of building straw men when I merely echoed what the original poster said and responded to it.

He said, for example, the exclusion of Jesus from first history books is a proof (or reason) that Christianity is false. He said that Matthew 10:23 et al proves that Christianity is false. I wasn't building straw men, I just pointed out how these (and the others) don't prove that at all. If the original poster DIDN'T say that these 10 ten reasons prove xty is false, then I must have misread the content and misunderstood the reason for his reasons.

Third, it's interesting that boomslang tries to identify me as a Christian simply because I challenged some irresponsible thinking. I will say it again plainly: I'm not a Christian, not a member of the church.

Fourth, I'm not sure where I indicated that I have "special knowledge." I certainly don't. I just pointed out that the above 10 reasons aren't all that convincing.

Fifth, you're right: the Bible is something of a grab bag with nuggets of wisdom along side some really weird stuff. What do you expect from ancient litature? I think rational 21st century adults ought to be able to discern the difference and keep those things that remain useful, and over look the rest.

Sixth, yes I take my religion buffet style, just like I take everything else. I choose political candidates not because I agree 100% with them, but because he/she resonates with me on issues most important to me.

My wife isn't 100% perfect, but I married her because her greatest values are my greatest values and I chose to be with her because there are things about her that I love, even though there are things about her that aren't perfect.

This applies to everything. All of life is a buffet. In every area we pick and choose according to what we like or what we at least understand. So it makes sense that we would choose our teachers the same way, buffet style.

Boomslang said, "Please provide OBJECTIVE reasoning that what inspires YOU is something that should UNIVERSALLY inspire all of humanity."

You're asking me to do something I never offered to do or set out to do. Neither am I willing to try. I'm not an evangelist or an apologist. I'm not trying to get anyone to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. And I'm not trying to prove anything about him.

Be inspired by whoever you want. If anyone were to ask me what I like about Jesus (or Marcus Aurelius or Francis of
Assisi) I would tell them, but it's everyone's own choice as to who they'll like. If you ask me why I like Mexican food, I'll tell you, but I can't tell you objectively why everyone on the planet should love Mexican food. That never was my point about Jesus, so I'm not sure why you're asking me to say it.

My original post was that the "top ten reasons why Christianity is false" is a poorly designed and weakly constructed presentation. It's full of holes and flaws. There are reasons not to be a Christian, but at least nine of his top ten aren't them.

So back to square one. The top ten reasons the original poster gave as proofs that Christianity is false -- the reasons are weak and full of holes. If you think they're good reasons, then argue them. Support them. Back them up. If you think reason #2 is solid evidence against Christianity, say so.

You guys can attack me all you want. Have at it if you makes you feel good.

But the real question is, can you honestly support the original top ten list as credible "proofs" that Christianity is false? If you read them with the eyes of a skeptic, do they really ring true?

Finally, the reason I remain anonymous is that I find "anti" people scary. Anti people often end up bombing abortion clinics and tall buildings and dragging people to their death and tying them to fence posts and leaving them to die -- so whenever someone defines themselves exclusively by what they're against, I approach with caution.

Whether I'm anonymous or not doesn't change the fact that the top ten list is iffy. Hate me, despise me, mock me, ridicule me blah blah blah, but I don't think anyone can, with intellectual honesty, support this original top ten list as a credible document of proof that Christianity is false.

posted: April 29, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

The problem with Jesus and what he taught is, that it simply does not work in the real world. It is impossible to love everybody, and if you try you are a fool.

Everything Jesus taught is based on the assumption that there is a just and caring God that looks out for the Human race, and he will cause fairness, and love to prevail. All of the evidence demonstrates just the opposite.

Millions of humans suffer and die every day without one shred of evidence that their God is looking out for them!

The strongest, and most ruthless, rule over the weak and timid.

The attractive and smart people are more successful in every endeavor than the ugly dumb ones.

Those who spend their lives praying to God for help, don't achieve nearly as much as those who help themselves.

Why would you want to forgive the pervert that raped and killed you child?

Jesus thought he was something special, but all it ever did for him is to get him killed. This event, if it actually happened or not, did spawn yet another religion, along the lines of other religions that preceded it, but all of the evidence shows that the three part Jesus God is just as impotent as all of the other mythological Gods who preceded it.
Dan (Who jus calls em as I sees em)

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Anonymous: "...I don't know why I was accused of building straw men when I merely echoed what the original poster said and responded to it."

Here are some examples of the straw men you erected, to refresh your memory:

1) Anony: "You're assuming the 4 records have to match exactly in order to be true,..."

No such assumption was made or implied. Hence, you attack a non-existent and absurd argument, which is also known as a "straw man."

2) Anony: "If no references to a man from historians in his century disproves the man’s existence,..."

No such assertion was made explicitly, although I grant you that you could argue that something close to that was implied by the title of the post. However, the more reasonable reading would be that having no contemporaneous accounts is reason for serious doubt. (More on that point below.)

3) Anony: "...You're implying that Jesus believed the Old Testament like a slobbering fundamentalist..."

No such implication was made or implied. Where did this "slobbering" buisness come from? Can you please point to a sentence in the original post that comes anywhere near that? What was the purpose of inserting such ridiculous paraphrasings?

So, I disagree that you were "merely echoing" what was in the original post. If you had inserted direct quotes, and replied to those, I think you would have found them much more difficult to attack than your outlandish characterizations of them (which, I presume, is precisely why you characterized them in such a way).

Anony: "He said, for example, the exclusion of Jesus from first history books is a proof (or reason) that Christianity is false."

No, he said "There are no historical writings by any first century historian that mention Jesus by name...", which is absolutely true is you discount the highly suspect passage in Josephus. He did not say "history books" in general, nor did he use the word "proof".

Anony: "He said that Matthew 10:23 et al proves that Christianity is false."

He points out that Jesus purportedly makes a statement that is false on the face of it. If he were truly god, I'd expect his statements to be accurate, wouldn't you?

Anony: "...If the original poster DIDN'T say that these 10 ten reasons prove xty is false, then I must have misread the content and misunderstood the reason for his reasons."

The original poster never once used the word "prove", and used the word "proof" exactly once; here is the exact sentence in which that word appears: "The two passages in the writings of Josephus that are often waved around as proof Jesus actually lived are clearly forgeries." So, I guess you misread it then. Now, it is true that the very title of the piece uses the word "false" with regard to Christianity, which is also repeated in the conclusion. To say that something is "false" could be construed as asserting that it can be (or has been) "proven" untrue. However, if one simply interprets that as a strong statement about how dubious and doubtful the entire enterprise is, then I see no problem whatsoever with the reasons arrayed by the original poster.

Anony: "But the real question is, can you honestly support the original top ten list as credible 'proofs' that Christianity is false? If you read them with the eyes of a skeptic, do they really ring true?"

They are not "proofs", they are problems that cast serious doubt on Christianity. As it is impossible, even in principle, to definitively prove or disprove anything in history, I think it's absurd to couch this entire discussion in such absolute terms. And, yes, the problems listed above certainly do cast Christianity into serious doubt.

Anony: "Finally, the reason I remain anonymous is that I find 'anti' people scary. Anti people often end up bombing abortion clinics and tall buildings and dragging people to their death and tying them to fence posts and leaving them to die..."

You just described religious zealots, which I presume is not what you meant by "anti" people. As for fearing us, I think we can make a fairly compelling case for why it is the religious zealots who should be feared, not us. Just look at the number of ugly threats that are made in these discussions; the vast majority of them are from believers; I'd put it easily above 80%.

Anony: "...so whenever someone defines themselves exclusively by what they're against, I approach with caution."

That's another absurd straw man. NOBODY here *defines* themselves in terms of what they are against; certainly none of the regulars here. That seems like nothing more than a abrasive slur on your part.

As for posting anonymously, there is a difference between being called "Anonymous" and posting anonymously. If you select "Other" you can *still* be anonymous, but you need not be called "Anonymous", which would help to distinguish you from hundreds of others. If you intend to participate in a dialog, you *really* need to have a unique tag that will bind your posts together and allow people to address you (while you maintain your anonymity if you wish).

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

I am not so much AGAINST religious belief as I am FOR those people with exceptional intellectual capacity, to come to the realization that there is no "Bogy Man that is gonna getcha,"if they question the tenets of a particular belief.

There are many people who may not be better off without the unquestioning faith that a good, all knowing, all powerful, being is up there in the sky, watching everything we do. There are those who are so dense that if they freed their minds from their belief in angels, demons, saints and miracles, sin, and such, and if they didn't have someone to tell them what to believe, they would be totally adrift.

On the other hand, I believe that there are too many highly intelligent people who are shackled by the fear of retribution from a God that was instilled into them in their youth, and will never be "All that they can be" We don't need any more people on this planet who are willing to kill or condemn others just because they believe their version of God is better than someone else's version.

There was a time not too long ago in this country, when if you came to the logical conclusion that there was no such thing as, "Grace, Blessings, miracles, Angels, Demons, Saints, Prophets, Spirits, Ghosts, Virgin Births, saved and unsaved, Prayer", and voiced those opinions, you would be a total outcast, or even tortured and killed, but today the only thing we have to fear for speaking our minds is "fear itself."

To reiterate my opening statement, I want people who have intellectual talent to realize that they should question everything. Whatever gave you that talent, will not be insulted, slighted, or disappointed, if you THINK, but it may be, if you DON'T!
Dan (Agnostic, humanist, Anti-Ageist)

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous No More wrote:

If "Ten Reasons Why" doesn't intend to prove something, then I must not understand anything about language. I think in any other context if someone said to me "here are ten reasons why such and such" -- I would pretty much take that as an attempt to prove something. So maybe it's just me.

I agree you with wholeheartedly that it is impossible, even in principle, to definitively prove or disprove anything in history.

I would go further to say that these ten reasons don't present a covincing case to even lean in its direction. While some (even most) of his statements are true and accurate, they don't disprove Christianity. Oops. I said a variation of proof again. I mean, while some of the statments are true, they're not necessarily valid reasons for concluding Christianity is false.

I am glad to hear that people at this website don't define themselves by what they're against. For some reason, the name of the site and graphic of Calvin pissing on the Jesus fish and the title of the post gave me that impression that the site might be populated by people who are basically against xty.

As for you Mr. Arvo, you don't miss a thing. You picked up on every sloppy thing I said, and while I am certain that you (or anyone) couldn't convincly defend the original 10 point post, you certainly siezed every weakness in my argument. I wish I could get your feedback on everything, frankly.

I said in my original post (which has mysteriously disappeared) that this was like batting practice for me. So maybe I've loosened up my swing a little bit now.

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anon-no more,

I'm finding it a bit hard to see any cohesion in your posts from one to the next. You storm in here saying "duh" this and "duh" that, and that this site's "cheezy" and how the original post "doesn't prove" this, or that. Then, later you said that you're not a Christian or part of a religion, but yet, Jesus "inspires you". Later still, you proceeded to make blanketed assumptions by comparing the ex-christian position to that of fundamentalist extremists, yet, you are "not Christian" yourself. WTF?

Anon-no more, you have hammered home the point that you don't think that the original post proves christianity is false. Okay----so what? Honestly, what do you care?...you are "not a Christian"; you are "not religious"; you are only "inspired" by Jesus' teachings. Good for you. Okay, so IF your Jesus existed, he certainly was no "Son of God", right? Well?...RIGHT??? My point is, if Jesus existed but was not of a "Divine" nature, why would you take issue with people who are NOT inspired by "some dude" that you happen to like?

Now's your chance, Anon...come clean and tell the class---why do we "need" Jesus?....why do we need HIM, as opposed to Mohammad, Budda, or Ra? Why would you care if we say "Christianity is false" or how we arrive at that conclusion, while you claim that you're "not a Christian"? Can you stop be evasive and please answer these pointed questions?

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous no more wrote:

Boomslang: Now's your chance, Anon...come clean and tell the class---why do we "need" Jesus?....Can you stop be evasive and please answer these pointed questions?


You just don't get it Boom. I'm not being evasive. I just don't have the answer to your question.

I do want to congratulate you for getting my point that the original post didn't accomplish what it set out to do. Now let me see if I can hammer home this next point for you.

You said, if Jesus existed but was not of a "Divine" nature, why would you take issue with people who are NOT inspired by "some dude" that you happen to like?

I don't know that I have ever taken issue with anyone for not being inspired by Jesus or any other spiritual teacher. Be inspired by whoever you like. Or not. If you think the Sermon on the Mount is all bullshit, that's your right. Think whatever you want.

I took issue with (oh yikes here I go again) the top ten reason because they are weak, shallow, full of holes and intellectually dishonest.

Now, if you can further support the top ten list, strengthen it a little bit, fill in some of the holes, then I would be interested to read anything you have to say about it. But you may as well give up now on the idea that I'm going to convince you, or even try to convince you, of something I myself don't believe. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that.

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Wow, direct questions completely ignored. What a shocker. lol!

Hmmmm, how can I...?...? okay, how's this---right now I don't give a rat's ass about the "Top Ten Reasons" why some other guy thinks Christianity is false, okay? I mean, regardless of the "why"---the poster thinks Christianity is false......so can we not use that as a diversion for a few seconds? Great. lol

Anon-no more: "If you think the Sermon on the Mount is all bullshit, that's your right. *Think whatever you want."

Hey, wait a minute... do you want us ex-christians to "think whatever" we want?....or does our methodology for deducing that something is "false" have to pass your criteria? Which is it? Surely you wouldn't care how an ex-christian would arrive at the conclusion that Santa Claus is false, would you?...as long as there is no critical thinking adult who believes that it is "true", would be the important part.

Still waiting on answers to some direct questions, if you're up to it:

1)Was the Sermon on the Mount bullshit?
2)Was/is Jesus the "Son of God"?
3)If "yes" on 1 and/or 2, do you have objective evidence supporting your conclusions?

Waiting.

posted: April 30, 2006 EST  

 anonymous no more wrote:

For crying out loud, boomslang, what's the matter with you? You can't be this thick. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

I'm sticking to my main point (a comment on the orginal post)and you call it a diversion? WTF? There is no diversion, boom. This is the point, the top ten list, it's the reason for my post.

I answered your questions in previous posts, but since it wasn't the answer you seem to be fishing for, you accused me of ignoring them.

So here's a yet another reply. I'm typing slow this time to help you understand.

There's a difference between opinion and fact. What one thinks of the sermon on the mount is opinion. The top ten reasons are presented as empirical statements and are therefore judged by a more objective criteria. Do you honestly not understand the difference?

Let me see if I can explain this a little further. If you said "George Washington is my favorite president." That's an opinion and you're entitled to it. But if you said, "George Washington is the best president ever because he signed the emancipation proclamation." That would be a statement (erroneous) of "fact" and subject to challenge.

The original poster said, basically, "here are ten reasons why Christianity is false," and stated not ten opinions but ten "facts" -- and mis-stated and misrepresented a few of them at that. Or at least maybe he did. I challenged the statements, arvo came back with a pretty good response, and I believe if he was inclined to do so we could bounce those ten items aound and debate them and maybe each of us come to a stronger conclusion. Maybe.

And that's the main point here, pal. It's not a diversion. This is the topic.

As for the three questions you ended your post with, they have nothing to do with the point of my original post, but nevertheless, I will entertain your curiosity.

1. Was the sermon on the mount bullshit?
You realize, of course, that you're asking for my opinion. And here it is: My opinon is that it isn't. I rather enjoy reading it. But just to make sure you understand: it's my opinion. I could talk at length about it, which parts I think are practical, which parts I find most helpful, which parts appear to be impossible, blah blah blah -- but it's my opinion. It's no different than discussing what movies I enjoy or what toppings I prefer on my pizza.

2. Was/Is Jesus the Son of God?
I'm flattered that you think I know the answer to this timeless question, but I'm afraid I'll have to demur. I'm sure this answer will really annoy you, but my answer to your question is I don't know. I imagine it's not the answer you're looking for, but I have been clear on this from the beginning.

3. If "yes" on 1 and/or 2, do you have objective evidence supporting your conclusions?
Again, you don't seem to understand that presenting objective evidence as to why I personally enjoy the Sermon on the Mount is as impossible as presenting objective as to why I like pizza. It's an opinion, so there's no objective evidence.

And since my answer for 2 is "I don't know" then clearly I don't have objective evidence. But neither do I believe that objective evidence exists, so you might as well have asked me to flap my arms and fly -- both are equally impossible.

Now a final point about your coment about your "hey wait a minute" paragraph. I don't care how you come to your conclusions. If you want to believe (to use the above example) that George Washington signed the emancipation proclamation, go ahead. But if you post it on an open forum, someone is likely to challenge it.

By posting his top ten reasons, the poster opened these "reasons" for debate. And, as I think I may have mentioned in a previous post (wait while I scroll up to double check...)these reasons are weak and full of holes. They need to be strengthened or further supported, and some of them, perhaps, need to be completely abandoned. And if anyone wants to discuss the top ten list, I'm all ears.

In the meantime, boom, I'll hang loose and wait for you to tell me how my interest in discussing the topic of the original post is really a diversionary tactic to avoid your questions.

posted: May 01, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Aah! To say that the sermon on the mount happened is only an opinion!
Why argue over the meaning of something that has an incredible high probability of never having occurred!

posted: May 01, 2006 EST  

 Anonymoose noah moor wrote:

As has been stated previously in this section, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything in history. So regardless of whether or not the sermon on the mount "happened" -- it somehow made it to print and the print version contains (in my opinion) some fascinating teaching that someone came up with. Was it Jesus who came up with it? There's more evidence for yes than no. But it's an interesting question to consider.

posted: May 01, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

There is no credible evidence for jesus. If you think I am wrong, please state your evidence for the record.

Interesting things in the bible, absolutely. The worst work of fiction ever written. Jesus spoke these words, prove it!

posted: May 01, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Anon-no more,

Firstly, as I stated before, it was the approach on your original post(which has strangely dissappeared) that peaked/peaks my curiosity. Why?...because most, if not ALL of the time that someone stumbles in here and starts foaming at the mouth about how this or that isn't "proof" of this or that deity's non-existance, well, they are most assuredly a proponent of a particular deity/faith.....in this case, the one in question is the three-in-one Father/ghost/son "Trinity" known as Jesus Christ. Additionally, the second "red flag" was/is the fact that you are insistant that you are NOT a "Christian", so I thought it odd that you would go through so much fuss over someone else saying that Christianity is false, regardless of how they arrived there(opinion or NOT). So okay...' got it---you are "pro-Jesus" but anti-Christianity. Understood. lol

Moving on--- I fully know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"; "subjective" and "objective", so you can lose the condescending edge, because frankly, it makes you look more like one of those...::eh em::.. people who you insist you're not...::wink::

Lastly--and since you brought up George Washington---yes, of course I agree on with you on what you said about deducing whether he was a good president blah blah blah as being an "opinion", notwithstanding, with George, there are text-books FULL of biographical information, along with hand-written letters by the man himself, not-to-mention the people who *knew* him DURING his life. So in other words, yes, whether he was a good president is opinion, BUT, whether he epmirically existed, and was a President of the United States is NOT opinion, it is fact...unlike the existance and alleged achievements of certain deities we "know".

Hopefully this clears it up, and we can fight Christianity hand-in-hand now. lol

posted: May 01, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

I think it would be interesting to look at the sermon on the mount and critique it's relevance to the real world, and the value of the advice that this so called Jesus was supposedly to have come up with.

I don't know about others, but he seems to be saying that this life is not worth living, and we should let people walk all over us and even kill us because this will insure us a shot in a better life in another place, when we die. It kinda smacks of a "Death cult"

If Jesus had a "Blog," what would people be saying to him today? Would he write paragraph upon paragraph trying to defend stuff like "Turn the other cheek," and "Give them your cloak also"?
Dan (Who thinks Jesus may have been just a nice guy but deluded)

posted: May 02, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

I like the Sermon on the Plain better.

posted: May 02, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

A few more nice little words from God on Sex. God never changes, except when he changes:

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

posted: May 02, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

If God had sex with Mary to get his son Jesus, does that make Mary the common law wife of God, and does that insure that Joseph is cooking in hell? I don't know if I am up to understanding all of the filth in the bible!
Dan ( Who admits to being guilty of lust and fornication, and adultery, and..........................during her period, but not one of the other things)

posted: May 02, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Dano,
That means that both god and Mary should have been stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage! lol

posted: May 02, 2006 EST  

 anonymous again wrote:

Well, I've given up on finding intelligent life on this forum. I had hoped some ex-Christians could offer something a little more substantial than Mary being the common law of God and "God doesn't change except when he changes." What I've discovered here is not an intellectual foundation for leaving or outgrowing Christianity, but instead a sophomoric mentality that looks for stupid things anything that will help them discredit Christianity. Know what the word obtuse means? Read your posts.

So, I guess I'll move on. I was really hoping to find a good discussion here. Something that would objectively support the abandonment of Christianity.

Oh well.

By the way, reply to this post if you want, but I won't read it. I won't be back.

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

If there is a God, or Gods, and it/they want us to know it exists, I am absolutely sure this God/Gods would see that each and every human being know the truth without allowing them to be skeptical, confused, and unsure as humans constantly are. We should not be having arguments over whether a religion is true or not. That alone tells me that all religions are false.

When God (if there really is one) wants us to know about him/her/it, no one will be in doubt because God will reveal itself in such a way, that no one will be able to say, "I don't believe."

So, until then, I will remain an agnostic.



So, the truth is, God doesn't want us to know..i.e., if there really is a God.



It's that simple.

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

To annonytroll: When Christians start to lose an argument they often resort to insults to distract or change the subject. Ignoring the insult is sometimes difficult, but there are a few Bible verses that may help get the discussion back on track. Remind that Christian of these verses:

Proverbs 12:16, "A fool is quick-tempered"

Luke 22:65, “And they threw all sorts of terrible insults at him.”

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”—

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

The link for that last comment.

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

anonymous again wrote:
"Well, I've given up on finding intelligent life on this forum. I had hoped some ex-Christians could offer something a little more substantial than Mary being the common law of God and "God doesn't change except when he changes." What I've discovered here is not an intellectual foundation for leaving or outgrowing Christianity, but instead a sophomoric mentality that looks for stupid things anything that will help them discredit Christianity. Know what the word obtuse means? Read your posts.
So, I guess I'll move on. I was really hoping to find a good discussion here. Something that would objectively support the abandonment of Christianity.
Oh well.
By the way, reply to this post if you want, but I won't read it. I won't be back"

Dano speaketh to anonymous again: You site two small examples of attempts at humor for your reason for not coming back, and ignore gazillions of pages of scholarly posts.

You will be back. It's just that the fear of learning the truth prohibits you from an honest search for it. When you gather up your courage again, you will be back. (If you do some more reading, you will discover that a lot of "Good, "Real Christians", threaten us with "I won't be back, and I wont read what you have to say) Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you", may seem like the most appropriate thing for the faithful to do, because of all the threats, and warnings in the bible about listening to unbelievers, but it is this intrinsic escape proof design of religious cults, that makes those who do escape, so angry after wasting so many years of their lives and giving so much money.

You have all of the earmarks of a person who calls himself a Christian, maybe, maybe not, but you can't possibly be so "obtuse" that you are willing to give up your search for reasons for abandoning a belief in a mythology, when practically everything in religious books like the bible is laughable in light of what 21st century man has learned.
Dan ( On the lower end of the "obtuseness" scale, but can smell a member of the "Christian Cult" from a mile away)

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Dano said:
You site two small examples of ..........................

He should have said: You cite two small examples of........................

cite
One entry found for cite.
Main Entry: cite
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology: Middle French citer to cite, summon, from Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciEre to stir, move -- more at -KINESIS
1 : to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)
2 : to quote by way of example, authority, or proof
3 a : to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b : to name in a citation
4 : to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent

Dan ( It's very lonly here in Obtuseville.)

posted: May 05, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

If you truely believe what you are talking about, you truely grieve the heart of a God who love you. Christianity is a belief but one that is solidifird in faith not what is seen. Fight against the tide all you want but you will be singing a different story when the trumpet sounds. Oh wait you do not believe in that either. From this web site I get a confliction of what it is you do not believe:
1. No God
2. No Jesus
3. or both
As for me and my house, WE WILL SERVE THE LORD! and do so in faith with gladness. Beleive in what you will but please believe in something.

posted: May 19, 2006 EST  

 Christian_01 wrote:

ok... do all of you guys realize what you are argueling about. I was researching reasons for christisnity for a project.. i am a christian.. and i came across this site and decided to read it just to see what some other people's opinions are. And you guys are all absolutely missing the point of christianity and everything.. it's disgusting. first of all.. why would there be a web site to try to prove that christianity is wrong? who do you think you are to try to prove that... and what if your wrong.. have you considered the consequences? I didnt read all of your comments, only the first few... scrolled down a bit and read some things argueing that God and mary were not virgins... so i just scrolled to the bottom.. and thankyou to whoever left that last comment.. there is still some sanity in this world!
what you guys argueing against christianity dont understand is that christianity is not all about proof, or solid evidence that its real.. I believ in God and trust Him with all my heart soul and mind, but no.. i dont have complete proof that Jesus was real... I dont have complete proof that God created heaven and earth and i dont have proof that the Bible is 100% correct. But thats not what being a christian is all about... christianity is based on faith. In Romans 10:8 (ASV), the Bible is called "the word of faith" and in chapter 10 it says “Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.” it does not say whoever has proof that Jesus existed will not be disappointed.. it says whoever believes... Christians and non christians alike should not be argueing about hings in the Bible that dont matter. We spend so much of our time argueing about the little things with people who have hardened hearts towards God. Christians get nowhere doing that, it is God alone who can change a man's heart. now this is the one and only post i'll make on this site... i just had to say something because i was truelly disappointed in what u are trying to do.. you have your beliefs, i have mine... who do you think you are that u can try to change mine? it is not your place to do it, so please.. keep your opinions to yourself from now on... And may God be with you, I will remember you in my prayers to the God who truely cares.
Abby <><

posted: June 13, 2006 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

Illiterate Christian who accidentally fumbled their way on to a website that's clearly titled "EX-Christian" had this to say:

"you have your beliefs, i have mine... who do you think you are that u can try to change mine? it is not your place to do it...so please, keep your opinions to yourself from now on."

Are you f%cking serious? Take your brainwashed apologetic little ass outta here. Seriously, I could eat a bowl of Alpha-Bits and shit out a better argument for your bastard son-of-a god. Get lost. SCRAM! Shoo! BEAT IT!....go play with Barbie's Country Camper!

lol

posted: June 13, 2006 EST  

 J. C. Samuelson wrote:

Oi!

Abby,

My young friend, you really need to learn to think before you speak/type. And learn to use punctuation, sentence structure, and a spell checker at a minimum.

But moving on...

"ok... do all of you guys realize what you are argueling about."

Yes. However, it seems to have escaped you that we wouldn't be arguing but for the Christians who come here trying to prove something.

"I was researching reasons for christisnity for a project.. i am a christian.. and i came across this site and decided to read it just to see what some other people's opinions are."

It's commendable that you wanted to find other opinions. Unfortunately, what you write further in your post gives away the fact that you have not read the site. You read - more than likely - this one post and made a snap judgment.

"And you guys are all absolutely missing the point of christianity and everything.. it's disgusting."

No, actually we do understand Christianity quite well given that nearly all of the regulars on this site were Christians for many years before giving it up.

It is you that doesn't understand the point of this site.

"first of all.. why would there be a web site to try to prove that christianity is wrong? who do you think you are to try to prove that..."

First of all, this site is not dedicated to proving Christianity is wrong. It is dedicated to providing support and information to EX-Christians.

As for who we think we are, exactly who do you think you are to ask this question? Have you travelled a mile in our shoes? Didn't think so.

However, since we're on the subject (and you're really willing to explore Christianity, both pro and con) you could actually read the articles, letters, and posts on this site and become better informed. You might also visit Infidels.org. The link takes you to the section particular to Christianity. It might be a good start. Also, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is useful when compared along with your own copy.

"and what if your wrong.. have you considered the consequences?"

Ah, yes. Pascal's Wager and the threat of your imaginary Hell.

Are you saying we should believe simply out of fear? That doesn't exactly sound like the faith the Bible talks about (see here and here). Are you aware that in Romans 14:23 Christians are told that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"?

"I didnt read all of your comments, only the first few..."

That's quite obvious.

"...scrolled down a bit and read some things argueing that God and mary were not virgins... so i just scrolled to the bottom.."

That's not how one does proper research when trying to learn anything.

"...and thankyou to whoever left that last comment.. there is still some sanity in this world!"

Not everyone in the world will agree with you, Abby. Saying that everyone who doesn't is insane (or implying it as you did here) won't get you very far at all.

While we're on the subject, doesn't Paul remind you in Romans 12:18 to live peaceably with all men?

In any case, researching something (as you claim) with the conclusion already fixed in your mind is called having bias.

"what you guys argueing against christianity dont understand is that christianity is not all about proof, or solid evidence that its real.."

Actually, we understand very well that Christians aren't very discerning in the evidence department.

"I believ in God and trust Him with all my heart soul and mind, but no.. i dont have complete proof that Jesus was real... I dont have complete proof that God created heaven and earth and i dont have proof that the Bible is 100% correct."

Thanks for your honesty. However, doesn't this mean you should at least consider that your religion might be false?

"christianity is based on faith."

Which most of us here have rejected.

"Christians and non christians alike should not be argueing about hings in the Bible that dont matter."

I couldn't agree more. So, the reason for your post was...

"We spend so much of our time argueing about the little things with people who have hardened hearts towards God. Christians get nowhere doing that,"

You're right. Christians get nowhere arguing their point-of-view.

"now this is the one and only post i'll make on this site..."

Ok. But I hope you'll read more of it all the same.

"who do you think you are that u can try to change mine? it is not your place to do it, so please.. keep your opinions to yourself from now on..."

You are the visitor here. We did not come to your door, you came to ours. You are free to ignore this site and never come again if you like, but we have every right to voice our opinions here. Who do you think you are telling us we don't have a right to our opinions, eh?

Go grow up.

"And may God be with you, I will remember you in my prayers to the God who truely cares."

No thanks.

posted: June 13, 2006 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Christian_01 wrote:
" And may God be with you, I will remember you in my prayers to the God who truely cares"
Abby <><
posted: 6/13/2006 11:56 AM EST  

Dan to, ABBY!
I was thinking the same thing just the other day when I saw the millions of starving people, and mothers with starving babies in their arms, who were made refugees by ruthless soldiers of an African dictator, and are now being raped and mutilated on a daily basis.

Also when I read about the millions of people who were tortured and then burned at the stake during the "Dark Ages."

I was totally overwhelmed by these examples of Gods love for his creations! Every time I see a child born with two heads or with spinabifada, or any of the thousands of horrible diseases that he blesses people with, I think of Gods love and it almost makes me cry with joy!

Dan (Realist. It's your hell, you go there!)

posted: June 13, 2006 EST  

 Dave wrote:

I have been a christian for thirty years and grew up in the church. Over the years, I have learned that many in the church use the scriptures to control,dominate and abuse others. After many years of searching and looking at my own family of origin, I found that most of my hurt was from my well-intentioned but wounded and dysfunctional family and not the Word of God. Although it was used inappropriately. I have since become a christian counselor and have helped many out of their pain and hurt from abuse. What I hear from these articles is that same kind of hurt and pain I experienced when I was growing up. I hope and pray that you will look a little deeper into your soul and see the abuse that makes you so angry. God loves you and has a enormous amount of grace. Paul was a persecutor of the church but when Christ touched his soul and spirit, he became the strongest advocate for the cause of Christ. God bless you as you seek his truth.

posted: September 02, 2006 EST  

 Pollywannacracker wrote:

....::Yawn::....

posted: September 03, 2006 EST  

 Vinod wrote:

I belonged to Hindu family before I gave my life to Christ. I was a young boy then, still studying in high school in IX Standard and I had two more years to graduate from high school. I was studying in a boarding School and had rare opportunity to come out of School campus to meet my relatives who lived in the city. But it was one of those weekends in November 1992, when I got the opportunity to meet my cousin who lived in the city and that was my Dipawali holidays (Dipawali is one of the Hindu’s festival of light). But one day I was discussing with my cousin about religion and he said, "There is only one God and Lord, and He is Jesus Christ." Those really made me interrupts and say, “how that’s possible”? As a matter of fact, even during my High School days, I use to pray to gods of all religion, every evening before going to bed and this was my habitual practice. To me no one religion was greater than the other; I strongly believed that all religion is one. I thought, one was only taking different routes but we all were reaching the same destiny.

To tell you the fact, I never believed Christianity. I never believed and would not believe Christianity as the right pathway to true God, because I had been living among Christians right from my Childhood and had never seen any exemplary Christian, besides, my own Hindu concept of 330 Million gods (Hinduism believe in 330 million gods) never make me feel that my Hindu religion was true. Going to temple had never changed them.


I was too attracted towards Islam those days, because of their concept of one God and I loved the way they would do their Namaz (Their prayer). But while debating with my cousin, I said that the Hindu god like Durga are more powerful than Jesus who died on the cross, since Jesus could not save himself, but my cousin further said that all those gods of Hinduisms are “demons” and only Jesus is Lord. This made me very upset and my first impulse was anger, this almost led us to fight, but when my aunt saw us fighting and disputing on religion, she scolded us and told us that we should not fight on religion being brothers. Then my cousins begin to testify me of the miracles that took place in the recent healing crusades that he had attended. He told me, that blind men were able to see and lame were able to walk in the name of Jesus Christ.


But that event had a great impact in my heart and life. I should say, that even changed my whole course of destiny. There itself I begun to reason, *** “Why do people change their religion (because I had been hearing that some people were getting converted to Christianity”? *** “What is there in Christianity that is not there in Hinduism.”? As a sixteen-year-old boy, I decided that, “I would try to reach the heart of truth,” “I will dig out Christianity.” So, after my weekend was over, I went back to my boarding hostel. On reaching my hostel, I went to a Christian friend of mine and asked him, “Friend, could you please lend me your bible.”? He said, “Sure why not”? Hearing that other friends around us were surprised. I borrowed the Bible that evening and began to read it. As I began to read the Bible, I was shocked to find that Bible spoke of things that were going inside of my heart. Those thoughts of adultery, fornication, dirty thoughts, and unwholesome language were a part of my life and Bible called them SIN. I had never known the true definition of sin until I read the Bible. Bible introduced me to sin, proved me the menace of sin, taught me the destiny of sins and showed me a fail-safe way to get saved from my sins through Jesus Christ. Thoughts of adultery, fornication, and unwholesome language were so much a part of my life, that I never thought that they were wrong; moreover, that is what I saw in the life of my friends and the people around me. But one thing I know, that reading the Bible became interesting all the more. Many times, the sins which I would commit during the day, those same sins I would see in Bible and that made me scarred and I would think, “how does the Bible know all about me.” This went on, as I begin to miss my classes and sit in School Library to read the Bible. My friends were surprised to see me carry a Red Bible in my hand all the time. Some of them asked me, “Why do you carry that Bible.”?


This went on for a period of one month and little more. But I was convinced; that the God of whom Bible talks about is a true God. I thought, “The God of Bible knows everything about me and yet He wants to forgive me.” Following this, my winter vacation commenced in December, and on 13th Dec 1992 (Sunday) I had the opportunity to attend Church with my cousins for the first time. God spoke to me on the first day through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, His sacrificial death for me. I was so touched by John 19:34, “ And the solder pierces Jesus’ side with spear and blood and water gushed out of His side,” I said in my heart, “ Lord, you have undergone too much for me.” Then the Pastor asked, “Jesus has done so much for you, what have you done for Him?” That me cry within. I said, “Yes Jesus, you have done so much for me but what have I done for you.” My hearts melted and I began attending the Church regular basis and on 25th December 1992, I gave my life to Christ.


Things have never been the same following my acceptance of Jesus Christ. We shared the good new of Jesus Christ with my mother who had been tormented of sickness for 2-3 years. Because of her undetectable throat infection, she could not even swallow water and this had been her condition for years together. We as a family had made all the possible vows to our Hindu gods and had visited the high worship places seeking healing. But, all the so-called Hindu gods, deities, had failed and the Doctors had failed too.


In a state of hopelessness and depression, my Mom said, “I believe in Jesus. All the days of my life I served my gods but they have failed me all this time.” That evening when she shut the room and knelt down in her room to make confession of her sins to Jesus, then Lord Jesus touched her and she received instant healing, Hallelujah! Jesus did not fail us, oh! What a joy, He never fails. Our whole family received Jesus Christ thereafter and got saved. I just praise God who has shown us His enduring mercy, abounding grace and unfailing compassion. Because of His mercy we were not consumed but rather GOT SAVED in His Son Jesus Christ.

So, this is my life testimony and I can assure you with my life’s innate experience, “You may have failed, but Jesus will never fail. “You may have failed Him but He will never fail you. Come to Jesus and give Him your life, for only the feet of Jesus Christ the Son Of God is the safest place. Amen.

posted: September 22, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

I belonged to Hindu family before I gave my life to Christ. I was a young boy then, still studying in high school in IX Standard and I had two more years to graduate from high school. I was studying in a boarding School and had rare opportunity to come out of School campus to meet my relatives who lived in the city. But it was one of those weekends in November 1992, when I got the opportunity to meet my cousin who lived in the city and that was my Dipawali holidays (Dipawali is one of the Hindu’s festival of light). But one day I was discussing with my cousin about religion and he said, "There is only one God and Lord, and He is Jesus Christ." Those really made me interrupts and say, “how that’s possible”? As a matter of fact, even during my High School days, I use to pray to gods of all religion, every evening before going to bed and this was my habitual practice. To me no one religion was greater than the other; I strongly believed that all religion is one. I thought, one was only taking different routes but we all were reaching the same destiny.

To tell you the fact, I never believed Christianity. I never believed and would not believe Christianity as the right pathway to true God, because I had been living among Christians right from my Childhood and had never seen any exemplary Christian, besides, my own Hindu concept of 330 Million gods (Hinduism believe in 330 million gods) never make me feel that my Hindu religion was true. Going to temple had never changed them.


I was too attracted towards Islam those days, because of their concept of one God and I loved the way they would do their Namaz (Their prayer). But while debating with my cousin, I said that the Hindu god like Durga are more powerful than Jesus who died on the cross, since Jesus could not save himself, but my cousin further said that all those gods of Hinduisms are “demons” and only Jesus is Lord. This made me very upset and my first impulse was anger, this almost led us to fight, but when my aunt saw us fighting and disputing on religion, she scolded us and told us that we should not fight on religion being brothers. Then my cousins begin to testify me of the miracles that took place in the recent healing crusades that he had attended. He told me, that blind men were able to see and lame were able to walk in the name of Jesus Christ.


But that event had a great impact in my heart and life. I should say, that even changed my whole course of destiny. There itself I begun to reason, *** “Why do people change their religion (because I had been hearing that some people were getting converted to Christianity”? *** “What is there in Christianity that is not there in Hinduism.”? As a sixteen-year-old boy, I decided that, “I would try to reach the heart of truth,” “I will dig out Christianity.” So, after my weekend was over, I went back to my boarding hostel. On reaching my hostel, I went to a Christian friend of mine and asked him, “Friend, could you please lend me your bible.”? He said, “Sure why not”? Hearing that other friends around us were surprised. I borrowed the Bible that evening and began to read it. As I began to read the Bible, I was shocked to find that Bible spoke of things that were going inside of my heart. Those thoughts of adultery, fornication, dirty thoughts, and unwholesome language were a part of my life and Bible called them SIN. I had never known the true definition of sin until I read the Bible. Bible introduced me to sin, proved me the menace of sin, taught me the destiny of sins and showed me a fail-safe way to get saved from my sins through Jesus Christ. Thoughts of adultery, fornication, and unwholesome language were so much a part of my life, that I never thought that they were wrong; moreover, that is what I saw in the life of my friends and the people around me. But one thing I know, that reading the Bible became interesting all the more. Many times, the sins which I would commit during the day, those same sins I would see in Bible and that made me scarred and I would think, “how does the Bible know all about me.” This went on, as I begin to miss my classes and sit in School Library to read the Bible. My friends were surprised to see me carry a Red Bible in my hand all the time. Some of them asked me, “Why do you carry that Bible.”?


This went on for a period of one month and little more. But I was convinced; that the God of whom Bible talks about is a true God. I thought, “The God of Bible knows everything about me and yet He wants to forgive me.” Following this, my winter vacation commenced in December, and on 13th Dec 1992 (Sunday) I had the opportunity to attend Church with my cousins for the first time. God spoke to me on the first day through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, His sacrificial death for me. I was so touched by John 19:34, “ And the solder pierces Jesus’ side with spear and blood and water gushed out of His side,” I said in my heart, “ Lord, you have undergone too much for me.” Then the Pastor asked, “Jesus has done so much for you, what have you done for Him?” That me cry within. I said, “Yes Jesus, you have done so much for me but what have I done for you.” My hearts melted and I began attending the Church regular basis and on 25th December 1992, I gave my life to Christ.


Things have never been the same following my acceptance of Jesus Christ. We shared the good new of Jesus Christ with my mother who had been tormented of sickness for 2-3 years. Because of her undetectable throat infection, she could not even swallow water and this had been her condition for years together. We as a family had made all the possible vows to our Hindu gods and had visited the high worship places seeking healing. But, all the so-called Hindu gods, deities, had failed and the Doctors had failed too.


In a state of hopelessness and depression, my Mom said, “I believe in Jesus. All the days of my life I served my gods but they have failed me all this time.” That evening when she shut the room and knelt down in her room to make confession of her sins to Jesus, then Lord Jesus touched her and she received instant healing, Hallelujah! Jesus did not fail us, oh! What a joy, He never fails. Our whole family received Jesus Christ thereafter and got saved. I just praise God who has shown us His enduring mercy, abounding grace and unfailing compassion. Because of His mercy we were not consumed but rather GOT SAVED in His Son Jesus Christ.

So, this is my life testimony and I can assure you with my life’s innate experience, “You may have failed, but Jesus will never fail. “You may have failed Him but He will never fail you. Come to Jesus and give Him your life, for only the feet of Jesus Christ the Son Of God is the safest place. Amen.

posted: September 22, 2006 EST  

<