 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Brian B
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and behold one of the strangest creatures in the world! He is sometimes thought of as paradoxical, almost oxymoronic, and yet he is far more common than most of you think! That's right folks, presenting to you tonight is that fascinating individual we call...the Thinking Christian!
The Thinking Christian is especially common in the more urban areas of Canada, and can often be seen on private Christian campuses. Many are students, and some are learned professors. But the Thinking Christian can be anyone-it could be that smiling father or that studious girl, or that friendly bus driver. On the outside, they appear normal. But if we delve into their minds and their inner workings, we discover a strange and confusing world.
The first thing to notice when examining a Thinking Christian's brain is that firm metal wedge driven right down the center of their brains, thus creating, in a sense, not one, but two brains. You will notice that on one side, there is a flurry of activity. Facts are processed, opinions are made, questions are asked, beliefs are challenged, evaluations are made. It is alive!
Now let us look at the other side of the brain. By contrast, it is surprisingly static. However, you will notice that it is not completely empty. There is an iron box inside, padlocked with a complex code. In this box is a list of religious doctrines, the title of which reads: "I BELIEVE THIS". These doctrines rarely, if ever, change. The other side might question from time to time why those doctrines are in there, but never are they taken out or removed.
For all the activity that goes on in the former part of the Thinking Christian's brain, never does it occur to him that the locked up list might contain faulty presuppositions. You see, this list was not written by him, nor was it contrived by careful thinking and analysis. Rather, it was put there by someone else.
Since the Thinking Christian is a clever individual, his subconscious knows that if he really thought about it, there is no good reason that this list of religious doctrine should be there at all. However, his need, his dependence upon these doctrines prevail against his good sense. Therefore, in order to maintain belief in these doctrines, he slams a wedge between them and the rest of his intelligent brain, with a sign glaring, "DO NOT TOUCH!" He may ask questions and think about anything else he pleases, but these doctrines must always be the default position.
This is how we can have Christians who will acknowledge the numerous historical problems with the canon of the Bible and yet proclaim it the word of God. This is how we have Christians who are troubled with concepts such as hell in light of a "merciful" creator, yet believe in it anyway.
Anyway folks, I hope this has been enlightening, but our Thinking Christian has another book on apologetics to read, so we'll let him go now.
Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and behold one of the strangest creatures in the world! He is sometimes thought of as paradoxical, almost oxymoronic, and yet he is far more common than most of you think! That's right folks, presenting to you tonight is that fascinating individual we call...the Thinking Christian!
The Thinking Christian is especially common in the more urban areas of Canada, and can often be seen on private Christian campuses. Many are students, and some are learned professors. But the Thinking Christian can be anyone-it could be that smiling father or that studious girl, or that friendly bus driver. On the outside, they appear normal. But if we delve into their minds and their inner workings, we discover a strange and confusing world.
The first thing to notice when examining a Thinking Christian's brain is that firm metal wedge driven right down the center of their brains, thus creating, in a sense, not one, but two brains. You will notice that on one side, there is a flurry of activity. Facts are processed, opinions are made, questions are asked, beliefs are challenged, evaluations are made. It is alive!
Now let us look at the other side of the brain. By contrast, it is surprisingly static. However, you will notice that it is not completely empty. There is an iron box inside, padlocked with a complex code. In this box is a list of religious doctrines, the title of which reads: "I BELIEVE THIS". These doctrines rarely, if ever, change. The other side might question from time to time why those doctrines are in there, but never are they taken out or removed.
For all the activity that goes on in the former part of the Thinking Christian's brain, never does it occur to him that the locked up list might contain faulty presuppositions. You see, this list was not written by him, nor was it contrived by careful thinking and analysis. Rather, it was put there by someone else.
Since the Thinking Christian is a clever individual, his subconscious knows that if he really thought about it, there is no good reason that this list of religious doctrine should be there at all. However, his need, his dependence upon these doctrines prevail against his good sense. Therefore, in order to maintain belief in these doctrines, he slams a wedge between them and the rest of his intelligent brain, with a sign glaring, "DO NOT TOUCH!" He may ask questions and think about anything else he pleases, but these doctrines must always be the default position.
This is how we can have Christians who will acknowledge the numerous historical problems with the canon of the Bible and yet proclaim it the word of God. This is how we have Christians who are troubled with concepts such as hell in light of a "merciful" creator, yet believe in it anyway.
Anyway folks, I hope this has been enlightening, but our Thinking Christian has another book on apologetics to read, so we'll let him go now.
I love the wedge. It is so effective in describing how smart people can believe weird things.
Also in the box is a contract that says: If you leave everything in this box un disturbed until you die, you can go to a place called heaven where everything will be wonderful forever.
Any breach of this contract will earn you a first class ticket to a different place called hell.
There is (SMALL PRINT) in this contract, but the provisions of this contract prohibit you from reading it.
Dano (ex believer in myths)
Somebody was once challenged about his faith in God,"why do you believe in God? look come and "enjoy" yourself like the rest of us, please yourself, throw off self control,If it "feels good" just do it!" to which the reply came, "If my faith is no more than wishful thinking, then I have wasted my lifetime. But if your wrong, and God really does exist, then you will deeply regret for all eternty, your rejection of his offer of eternal life.
I think I will keep my faith thanks!
I am not offended or feel defensive by your writings, just willing to engage in a conversation because I am a thinking man!
God bless,
In His Service
Steve Maloney.
Second, to argue in favor of a deity or a creator is one thing; to argue that this deity is in fact the judeo-xian god is quite something else. I believe in no eternal life; no eternal pain or pleasure. The "offer of eternal life" is what your religion teaches.
Third, you are re-stateing pascal's wager, a cheap and sleazy attempt to frighten non-believers. If that is the best you can manage, then I will keep my unfaith, thanks.
But the most offensive thing of all is your calling yourself a thinker.
When a non-believer does the right thing in any circumstance, it is apparently more alturistically motivated than the actions of a Christian.
How can I say that?
Simple, the Christian is advocating a life lived for purely selfish motives: the gain of jewels in an eternal crown and avoidance of gastly everlasting torment. The non-believer who advocates doing the right thing, regardless of threats or promises, does so out of sense of love for fellow beings. There is no eternal payback for anything.
Ironic, isn't it?
I also had a youth group leader use that retarded pascal's wager on me when I was only about 15 or 16 and couldn't defend myself against it. Shame on him for trying to scare a young girl into believing a myth by threatening me with another myth.
Andrea
Very well put. I've tried to get them to see there is just selfishness in their alleged selflessness, but they are incapable of seeing it. That is why Christian "charity" is really just proseletyzing in disguise. Nothing they do is altruistic.
And "morality" out of fear is nothing to be bragging about.
BTW Steve, your "faith" is hardly honorable. Your just trying to hedge your bets. Pathetic.
"morality" out of fear is nothing to be bragging about.
so true!!
Anonymous, you small minded man/woman. We were once Christians. We've already heard Pascal's Wager and used it on those we witnessed to. For god's sake (pun intended), come up with some original and ephiphanic argument in Yahweh's favor. Your's has a gaping hole in it, being that you too could be wrong regarding which God you are choosing to follow.
What if the Jews constructed the Old Testament to say what they did regarding them being the "chosen one's"? Think about this for a moment.
Jewish custom was that the first born always inherited the birth right. The Torah claims that Isaac did, regardless of the fact that he was born second in line. Now, I am completely aware of the Jewish argument and the elaborate excuse they made in favor of their nation being the one to inherit the blessing due to the fact that Isaac was actually the "promised" child, blah, blah, blah, but WHAT IF, it's all a lie. WHAT IF Ishmael really was the rightful inheritor, and the Israelites made damned sure to nip the truth in the bud? I mean, how the Hell would you know any different? WHAT IF Allah is the right God, and Muhammad really IS the final prophet? If that is the case, you are in danger of HIS Hellfire, which, from what I understand, blazes even hotter than your loving Christian Hell. It seems to me that you are left in a quandry. Hmm.....Whatever shall you do?
Let's take it a step further. In case you plan to use the argument that the Jewish writings are older than the Islamic ones, let's consider the oldest religious writings, which happen to be Hindu. There is some debate over that, but scholars all agree that they are much older than any Jewish writings. Now, what if their myriad of gods are the correct ones? Are you aware of how similar the lives of Krishna and Jesus are? Seems to me that the accounts of your "Savior's" life are BORROWED!
You see, Anonymous, you are in no better of a position than we are, if you are worshipping the wrong God. In fact, I venture to say that you are in a WORSE position seeing that you could quite possibly be guilty of Pagan worship. We all know it's worse to follow the wrong God, than to admit that you just don't know!
In conclusion, it is YOUR soul, my friend, that you should be the most concerned about. Considering that we don't believe in one anyway, we are hardly worried about any of the World's make-believe God's pouring out their wrath on us, but you, are in a precarious position aren't you? You feel that your soul's eternal destiny is dependent on which God you follow. Wouldn't you educate yourself fully then, on the origins of your beliefs and the foundation of any opposing ones, JUST IN CASE (which is the whole foundation of Pascal's wager)?
Of course, I'm sure your tiny mind has not even considered the possibility that YOU could wrong, since you obviously possess that "wedge", that is common to all your brothers and sisters in the faith.
Truly, I think they are this way because of convenience. Christianity is very convenient, what with its broad social networks and easy-lie-Sunday-morning-cherry-picked beliefs. These people, being as intelligent as they are, are not intelligent enough to know how to deal with being completely ostracized, with being the subject of the intense hatred that comes with packing one's bags and leaving "The Fold". See the fundynonymous post on this page for reference.
And speaking of which . . . one of my all time favorite characterizations of the non-Christian is the projection of the true nature of the Christian (if it fells good, do it!) onto the non0-believer. I've been a victim to these notions many, many times, with absolutely no reason to infer I behave in such a way. But this behavior does not exist outside of Christian polemics. The thinking atheist is capable of morality, moreso than the Christian, because they have dared to ask the hard questions and not allow themselves to be fed the answers.
A great post. The image of the wedge and the lockbox are apt descriptions of the Thinking Christian thought process. Another good term for these people is the Wussy Moderate Christian.
So, kudos for an entertaining bit of poetry. May God multiply your gift of writing!
Truth is not subject to the interpretation of a personal lens.
In a court of law, when a person has been proven to have raped and killed a child, the words "The way I see it . . ." don't carry much weight when they come from the criminal.
Christians are fond of claiming that truth is subjective, and yet ultimately objective, so long as that objectivity aligns with the subjectivity of THEIR truth. And while it's grand that you propose that each individual sees their own truth, only one of those truths can be right, right?
Right.
Many individuals propose that there is a God, and you are a proposing that there is a God, and you use the term He, so I only can infer that you must be a Christian, right?
Right.
Well, Neo, therein lies the problem. Based on the evidence we are given, your God, the God of Christianity, cannot and does not exist. How do we know this? Because the "truth" of your God does not match up with the claims made about it.
The Christian God is defined by the collection of documents known as the Holy Bible, whether you like it or not. I, for one, cannot stand wishy-washy Christians that attempt to define the God of Christianity outside of Christianity. Yes, yes, I am perfectly aware that Paul skewed Jesus' view of God (a view which was hardly new; in fact, it would be appropriate to say that by the time anyone who might have been called Jesus existed, the idea was old enough to be stale), but nonetheless, without Paul there is no Christianity, seeing as how Jesus never thought to systemize his views. So . . .
What are the characteristics of the fictional God of Christianity, and why is this God impossible?
Well, rather than bog down the page with text, I will simply provide a few examples:
"Take this quote from the Bible. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
The impossibility of God is visible here as well. Based on Jesus' statement, let's assume that you are a child and you are starving in Ethiopia. You pray for food. What would you expect to happen based on Jesus' statement? If God exists as an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful parent -- a "father in heaven" -- you would expect God to deliver food to you. In fact, the child should not have to pray. Normal parents provide food to their children without their children having to beg for it. Yet, strangely, on planet Earth today we find tens of millions of people dying of starvation every year."
Similarly, if you ask Jesus to appear, he shall not:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/i50.htm
Ergo, the God of Christianity is impossible, and since this is the God you are speaking of, God is impossible, right?
Right.
Now, then, let's move on to the NEXT Christian fallacy you propose, Neo.
You propose that non-believers see the world through gloomy lenses. And, no, don't bother bullshitting me by claiming that is not what you said. I am well-versed in implied writing, and apparently so are you, so let's not bullshit the bullshitter here, okay? Anyway, you also propose that a future with God is the ONLY one worth fighting for. Again, don't bother bullshitting me by saying you didn't say that, because it's right there in your post.
My question for you is: WHY?
Why is a future with the God of Christianity the only one worth fighting for? Or is it the only future worth fighting for for YOU?
See, Neo, if the Bible is right, then you get to stick your hand in the eternal cookie jar. If not, you will die and pass from consciousness like the rest of us. Or, you will go to a Hell for not believing in the right God all along. Of the three, of course you want the eternal cookie jar, and of course you want to see those who disagree with you roasting in an eternal flame. Don't tell me that's not true; otherwise, you would be railing AGAINST the Christian God. You are either kissing the Christian God's ass, or you are not. And by what I can see, thou nose is brown.
*clears throat* See, Neo, it's funny that you say there's only one future worth fighting for, yet you also claim that the world is seen through multiple lenses, and that each of the lenses offers an exclusive, objective-yet-subjective truth. Ergo, you cannot say that a future without God is not worth fighting for, because through someone else's lens, it is, yet it is not because you say it is not. See the problem with your wishy-washy thinking? Like the Bible you draw from, your thinking on this subject is contradictory and indiciative of the placative nature of the Thinking Christian. Everything is okay, but it is not, yet it is.
Since God is impossible, I dn't see what you're so worried about.
"See the problem with your wishy-washy thinking? Like the Bible you draw from, your thinking on this subject is contradictory and indicative of the placative nature of the Thinking Christian. Everything is okay, but it is not, yet it is."
To Trancelation from Dano:
I had read several posts by Neocognitron, and they left me struggling for a term that would describe my assessment of his writings. When I read your "wishy-washy thinking," I knew instantly that you had hit upon what I was struggling for!
Thanks,
Dano (Non Christian Deist (Maybe)
If you reread my post you will find that I did not say that truth is subjective, but that peoples’ perceptions of the truth are. And my statement is verified in your response since you perceived a truth that was not there and therefore nullify the strength of your argument.
You also commented that “the Christian God is defined by the collection of documents known as the Holy Bible.” Well, that is quite untrue. God is God no matter how we define Him. We did not create or define Him we simply seek to understand who he is and for what purpose He made us. In this phrase you also comment that these thoughts about Him are all “contained within the collection of documents known as the Holy Bible.” This also is untrue since these documents are the only ones “canonized” or believed to be of divine origin. There are many un-canonized documents as well as many proven false such as the recently revisited book of Judas. Scientific discoveries may eventually find new books worthy of canonization and others worthy of being un-canonized. Either way it is not how we “define” or believe God to be that makes Him who He is. He simply is.
You reference a passage from Mark 7:7 which tells us to “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” You claim this does not happen and that “if you ask Jesus to appear, he shall not”. But I claim it can and does happen on a daily basis. The problem is we look at humanistic problems, pray about them and expect humanistic solutions. We pray for things like $300 so I can pay the car note or for that girl in the corner to go on a date with me. Instead we must pray for godly gifts which God gives generously and which have value beyond this life. Things like: “Please help me make better decisions about how to spend the money you give me,” or “Please help me trust in you and have wisdom enough to ask that girl out in a way that honors you.” So, yes, we do receive the gifts we pray for. Sometimes they are material things but most of the time they are the riches of heaven: love, joy, peace, wisdom, strength, tolerance, etc.
Your next statement is again a misunderstanding. You assumed that “[I] propose that non-believers see the world through gloomy lenses.” I said and I reiterate that people with gloom-colored lenses see truth in gloomy ways. This is not to assume non-believers are wearing those gloom-colored lenses. Some do, some don’t. Some of the most up-beat and enjoyable people in my life have been non-believers, and I applaud them. Many times I find they show a bit of God that I aspire to show.
You next ask: “Why is a future with the God of Christianity the only one worth fighting for? Or is it the only future worth fighting for for YOU? ” To which I tell you, no, this eternity is not only available for me. It is for you. It is for any blogger on this site. It is for any Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Christian, America, German, Greek, Israeli, Iranian, Hindu, man, woman, child, race, color, creed, and person on this planet. There are no boundaries.
Why is a future with the God of Christianity the only one worth fighting for?
The future proposed in the biblical doctrine is worth fighting for because it serves all of us in both this life and the next. And even if you do not believe in God or believe that there is an afterlife the principals still encourage us to better ourselves. For example, God asks that we love our neighbors and do good to them, to not murder, cheat, steal, lie or encourage others to do the same. If we, even as non-believers, are courteous and open the door for a lady or allow another to take a parking spot we have every right to take, this world becomes a better place to live for those few moments. If we then make it our life’s goal to live in this courteous manner we make the world better for all whom our lives touch. Now if all people, believers and non-believers, live in this courteous manner we would not have to hide our children from the vulgarity spewing from the people sitting in the next booth at the public restaurant or be concerned about the government passing another law that tells us how to live. Therefore, I tell you it is most definitely a future worth fighting for; for my family and for your own.
Fighting the good fight… You may or may not agree that this future, this utopia, is worth fighting for. But for those who do agree it is non-believers who are less likely to succeed in changing their lives as they desire. Why? Because they are alone in their fight. They seek to better themselves without community support and without the image of a perfect leader, Jesus, to guide them. They try over and over to show compassion or mercy or kindness and think they are somehow doing it wrong because the beneficiary of their gestures responds rudely or even with hostility. They will succeed for a time but a lonely crusade to better one’s self is still a lonely crusade. Others seek to follow leaders who appear from time to time often becoming the victims of cults and gangs. Despite these difficulties this future is still worth fighting for, even as a non-believer.
Peace be with you all!
Neocognition:
You said:
"If you reread my post you will find that I did not say that truth is subjective, but that peoples’ perceptions of the truth are. And my statement is verified in your response since you perceived a truth that was not there and therefore nullify the strength of your argument."
Remember when I asked you not to bullshit a bullshitter? Well, you're doing it here. There is not a single intelligent ex-Christian on this board who will say that individual perception of the truth is different from making truth subjective. They are one and the same. If you want to beat this horse, I am more than willing to bring the blunt utensils necessary to do so. If you would like to illustrate how having a perception of the truth is different from making the truth subjective, you're more than welcome to. I, for one, will be eagrly awaiting your revelations on this topic.
You said:
"You also commented that “the Christian God is defined by the collection of documents known as the Holy Bible.” Well, that is quite untrue. God is God no matter how we define Him."
So do you disagree with what the Bible has to say about God? Tell me, exactly which parts of the Bible are wrong about God, and what God "is"? Tell me which parts of the Bible are incorrect in their explanation of the characteristics and qualities of the one called God.
Because if you do not disagree with what the Bible has to say about the Christian God, then the Bible defines the Christian God. But until you tell me what parts of the Bible fail to correctly identify what God "is," I have no way of knowing how you feel that the Bible is wrong in defining God.
Somehow, I have this overwhelming doubt that you will disagree with what the Bible has to say about God. But I could be wrong. I just want to know exactly where the Bible got the Christian God wrong, according to you.
You make a comment on the canonized and non-canonized aspects of the Bible, though to what point I am unsure. You continue on this thread that no matter how we define God, God "is," yet I am still uncertain as how to where the Christian Bible that describes the Christian God failed to describe the Christian God correctly.
You said:
"You claim this does not happen and that “if you ask Jesus to appear, he shall not”. But I claim it can and does happen on a daily basis. The problem is we look at humanistic problems, pray about them and expect humanistic solutions. We pray for things like $300 so I can pay the car note or for that girl in the corner to go on a date with me. Instead we must pray for godly gifts which God gives generously and which have value beyond this life. Things like: “Please help me make better decisions about how to spend the money you give me,” or “Please help me trust in you and have wisdom enough to ask that girl out in a way that honors you.” So, yes, we do receive the gifts we pray for. Sometimes they are material things but most of the time they are the riches of heaven: love, joy, peace, wisdom, strength, tolerance, etc."
Here are the problems with your examples:
1. Money: You are asking for the exact same thing in the end. Whether you ask for more money or to make better decisions, making better decisions with money will ultimately reap MORE money. CDs, savings accounts, money market accounts, mutual funds, and the stock market provide ample opportunity for one to invest in and make monetary gains. But you are missing the point: the point is, that no matter what you pray for, you will not recieve it. I was afraid you were going to go off on a spiritual bent, but it appears that all you have done is reword the question so that if you do NOT get more money, then you can only blame yourself. This is a common tactic with Christian prayer, so that when it fails (which it always does), you can blame yourself and continue believing in your God.
Neo, the Bible does not provide a contract or legal guide by which we are supposed to be pray. It simply says ASK AND YOU SHALL RECIEVE. It does not provide a set of rules for what we are allowed to ask form nor does it make any of the implications you have provided in your respone to me. If you would like to provide scriptual basis for these claims, go right ahead. I, for one, will be eagerly awaiting your revelatiosn on this topic.
2. Getting the girl: again, you are asking for the same thing no matter how you word it, only when you word it a certain way it comes out to be YOUR fault if you do not get the girl. God was simply trying to tell you what to do, and you were too proud-hearted to listen.
Or . . . maybe prayer just doesn't work. Maybe there are no guidelines, and that one need only ask in Jesus name. and maybe that just doesn't work.
You said:
"Your next statement is again a misunderstanding. You assumed that “[I] propose that non-believers see the world through gloomy lenses.” I said and I reiterate that people with gloom-colored lenses see truth in gloomy ways. This is not to assume non-believers are wearing those gloom-colored lenses. Some do, some don’t. Some of the most up-beat and enjoyable people in my life have been non-believers, and I applaud them. Many times I find they show a bit of God that I aspire to show."
Well, good for you. Yet I still find it ironic that you should mention:
1. A future without God is not worth fighting for; such a future is not a utopia; it is a gloomy future
2. Certain people see the world through gloom-colored glasses
*makes scale motions with hands* That's just too convenient for me, Neo. Too much coincidence in one setting. But if non-believers are so great:
"Some of the most up-beat and enjoyable people in my life have been non-believers, and I applaud them."
. . . then why the commentary on gloom in such close relation to non-believers?
You said:
"To which I tell you, no, this eternity is not only available for me. It is for you. It is for any blogger on this site. It is for any Jew, Muslim, Buddist, Christian, America, German, Greek, Israeli, Iranian, Hindu, man, woman, child, race, color, creed, and person on this planet. There are no boundaries."
No boundaries, it seems, except belief.
Ahhh, there's the kicker, ain't it?
But before we get into that, let me point out that you misinterpreted my comment. I did not ask if your ideal future was available to me. I asked if it was the only future you believed in fighting for. In your disguised reply, you have given me a resounding "YES!" I did not ask if it was a future worth fighting for for myself. I asked if it was the only future you saw as something to fight for, and you gave me a resounding "YES!"
I feel a great pity for you.
In the vein of belief: many Christians, including yourself, would like to propose that the Paradise of Christianity is available to all, that Christianity is some sort of open-armed utopia awaiting all who would enter it. It is not.
The Bible makes it clear that non-believers are not welcome to stick their hands in the eternal cookie jar.
What the Bible says about Non-Christians
They are without God.
"Whosoever ... abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God." -- 2 John 9
They are all antichrists.
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." -- 2 John 7
They should be shunned. Neither marry nor be friends with them.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." -- 2 Cor.6:14-17
They should be killed.
"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10
So there you have it. No boundaries save for belief.
You then go on to encourage the Christian polemic that the Bible teaches us morality, and that we should follow its example, and because this somehow serves us in this life.
Yet the secular moralities proposed in the Bible are not unique to the Bible, nor did the jews create these wonderful ethics. They were in existence for thousands of years before the Jews even existed, present in every society before that of the early Christians. So what good is the Bible if these ideas were already in effect to begin with before jesus ever even existed? Don't you think that's kind of strange?
Christians love to point out the morals in the Bible that everyone follows, even though those morals are not exclusive to the Bible, nor did they originate with the Bible.
Considering that, that the moralities we follow are NOT uniquely Christian, and that the moralities we follow are sometimes even ANTIETHICAL to Christianity, why is a future with the Christian God the only one worth fighting for?
You said:
:You may or may not agree that this future, this utopia, is worth fighting for. But for those who do agree it is non-believers who are less likely to succeed in changing their lives as they desire. Why? Because they are alone in their fight. They seek to better themselves without community support and without the image of a perfect leader, Jesus, to guide them. They try over and over to show compassion or mercy or kindness and think they are somehow doing it wrong because the beneficiary of their gestures responds rudely or even with hostility. They will succeed for a time but a lonely crusade to better one’s self is still a lonely crusade. Others seek to follow leaders who appear from time to time often becoming the victims of cults and gangs. Despite these difficulties this future is still worth fighting for, even as a non-believer."
. . . Neo, you're ging to have to forgive me. It is very late, and I'm very tired, and I am doing my best to keep my sarcasm in check. But this is too much. And once again, you resort to Christian polemics. Neo, I hate to say this to you, but . . . us non-believers are not alone in our fight.
This website you're posting on right now? It is a meeting place for non-believers. We non-believers regularly communicate with each other, and sometimes even meet in person, so don't bother bringing up the point about the 'digital distances' that so often come up when discussing the internet these days.
There are countless atheist and non-believers websites, many of which have charter groups that hold meetings for non-believers to come and openly discuss their apostacy. There are even non-Christian dating services, and dating services offer the option for those seeking online to view only profiles that match their religion or lack thereof.
Besides that, being a non-believer does not mean we can't get along with believers. Most of us get along just fine with our believer counterparts; I myself get along with ALL of my christian coworkers, as spiritual language is no stranger to me. Yet I feel completely uncompelled to revert back to the 'dark side'.
Why?
Because this is a personal quest, not a community one. So your point that non-believers have no community is moot, invalid, pointless, and totally irrelevant.
We are everywhere. We are not alone. And remaining in our non-belief despite the social pressures of Christianity only illustrates our powerful inner resolve. If Christians cannot stand a future in which they must look inward and face themselves, then that is a future I will fight for.
Neo': God is God no matter how we define Him.
Perfect. Okay---non-existant is NON-EXISTANT "no matter" how we "define" it.
You're right about that. I commented earlier in my responses to Neo that he was the perfect example of the Thinking Christian, and being the poster child for the personal interpretation of scripture is the same thing, for this is an extremely common Thinking Christian practice.
Of course, when it comes to cherry-picking, I am most interested in knowing how the Bible got the God of Christianity wrong, seeing as how no matter how we define the God of Christianity, it is still the God of Christianity, even though the Bible is what defines the God of Christianity as the God of Christianity. In all my years debating Christians, I have never heard something like this. I am very eager to see if Neo will tell me what the Bible got wrong, or if the unending silence will only act as confirmation of his retreat.
and also, nn-existent is non-existent; no doubt about that.
"...Somehow, I have this overwhelming doubt that you will disagree with what the Bible has to say about God. But I could be wrong. I just want to know exactly where the Bible got the Christian God wrong, according to you..."
Oh man, he's never going to go there. Nevernevernevernevernever. He could be Pacal-ing his way right out of the cookie jar.
Neoturd: You are a moron. When Jesus assures us that whatever we ask for shall be given, he does not place any stipulations on the reader or the listener. What you are attempting to do is what ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO, which is to defend THE indefensible.
WHen it suits you, you are able to point to certain scripture and say, "You see, there it says such and such. It is a black and white issure", but when it comes to failed promises or prophecies on your Savior's part, well THOSE scriptures are just being interpreted wrong, correct? When it comes to the fact that Jesus told the disciples that there were some standing there that would not taste death before his second coming, I guess we just misunderstood him, correct? I mean, EVERYONE KNOWS, that isn't what he meant! When Yahweh claims to abhor human sacrifice but then allows Onan to do exactly that with his daughter, regardless of the reason, well THAT'S different, cause, uhm, cause...WHY is that different, again? Oh, that's right, because he's "God".
I find it riotous that CHristians claim that without God there can be no absolute morality, when their God can not even make up his own friggen mind what is right and wrong. Why exactly did God kill thousands for a census that he commanded David to take? WHY?!? Why did God punish Adam and Eve for eating of the tree, when they didn't even yet have a knowledge of right and wrong? WHY? Why was it somehow morally right for Lot to offer up his virgin daughters in place of the "angels" when God supposedly abhors such a thing? Why was it okay for Moses to command the Israelites to take for themselves the virgin women of other nations but to kill off everyone else? WHY?!? Wouldn't that be RAPE? I mean, you can't bullshit me and tell me that those young girls WILLINGLY allowed themselves to be handled by these men, and if they did go willingly it was only to avoid being killed for putting up a fight!
Throughout your unholy book, I am assaulted with contradictions and abhorent scripture. Any other "God" guilty of such atrocious acts and commands would be rejected by you.
You claim that God is God and that it is not only the Bible that describes his personhood or essesence, if you will, but it is that very book which you read to try and understand Him more! You claim that there are other "uncanonized" books out there referring to Jesus. Have you read them? I have. I've read the Book of Thomas, I've read Mary Magdeline and Judas. I own the Apocrypha. Are you aware that MANY of the Gnostic gospels do not refer to Jesus as divine? You claim that truth is subjective to each individual. Have you not considered the fact that perhaps the Gnostic versions are the correct ones? Of course you haven't. The Roman government and the powers that be were quicly losing their authority over the religious folk and sought to combine the many religious dogmas, rituals, and creeds into one, so as to regain complete control over the masses. They deified this Jesus and incorporated many of the surrounding religious practices into "Christianity". The Protestant Reformation sought to get out from under Catholic control, but they didn't go very far. They still maintain the same "pagan" holidays, Sabbath, and other rituals and beliefs that the Romans instituted to begin with.
The fact of the matter is, that Christianity is MAN MADE!!!! You yourself admit that everyone has their own truth. If man created Christianity how can you trust it is "divine"? If you had grown up in a predominately Muslim practicing community, you would believe the subjective truth of Muhammad.
We here at Ex-Christians fought our way our way to the intellectual freedom we now possess. We are not haughty. We once believed YOUR subjective truth, but through diligent study, we have concluded that it is all a LIE! It is not just a mistake, my friend. It (Christianity) is a cleverly devised LIE.
Truth is truth. Religion is outside of truth, because even Christians experience different versions of the Christian "truth". You have never heard God's audible voice. You have never seen God or his son with your eyes. All that you know to be "true" is based on your teaching and your feelings. You have lined up your thinking to go along with what you have learned about the Christian religion. I challenge you to conduct an UNBIASED study of your religion as though you had never been indoctrinated with it, and see where you end up.
If Christianity were the "TRUTH" we would all come to know it as we came to an age of accountability or enlightenment. If Christianity were the "TRUTH" there would be no denying it, but in fact millions of good people die everyday without a "saving knowledge of Christ". How is that? Those poor, unsuspecting millions just didn't have the opportunity to hear the gospel preached to them. What ever will become of their souls, hmm? And then there are the millions who reject your "truth", because they have been indoctrinated with a different "truth". Is it their fault for denying your truth when they have been warned of the wrath of their own God? And then there are those of who reject your "truth", because it is full of obvious contradictions and err. Could your wonderful OMINIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT, and OMNISCIENT God not have come up with a perfect document, so as to avoid all of this mixup? I mean, couldn't he at LEAST get together with you Christian folk and clear up any misinterpretations and mistranslations among you, so that you could all be of one mind? NO, because TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE RIGHT?
If your God is truth, if any God is truth, than it is HIS responsibilty to make sure we understand what that truth is, and yet two Christians sitting side by side in the same pew will disagree as to what this wonderful God really requires and just what attributes this wonderful God really possesses.
I am perplexed by your "truth". Funny, I alway thought that the "truth" shall set me free, but your "truth" has done nothing but ignite interdenominational disputes, national and international wars, and heinous crimes that should cause you to hang your hang in shame. So much for truth, huh?
nvrgoingbk:
The strangest aspect of Christian morality in relation to God is that they have two excuses for God's behavior:
1. God can do what it wants because it is God
2. We do not see the big picture like God does
Of course, both of these lines of rehtoric are absolutely, completely and totally motherfucking insane. God's behavior in the Bible, Old and New Testament, is inexcusable and unacceptable. Almost all modern Christians want to view their God as perfect, even though God possesses human qualities in the Bible.
(Hey, Neo, I'm still waiting for that explanation on where the Bible got it wrong, buddy. Was the Bible correct or incorrect when it described God with human behavior or with inhuman behavior? Which contradiction is correct?)
So if God possesses human qualities, I say God should be held accountable as a person. ALL humans are subject to justice in my book, including clergy. None deserve more because of whom they are, nor do they deserve less. Justice is meted out in accordance with the honor broken. And this God of Christianity has a lot of explaining to do.
But because Christians want so badly to fit into their precious "community," they will not go against the status quo. Simply go to amazon.com and read reviews for Christian books, movies and music by other people that are obviously Christian. You will not find a SINGLE glaring review. ALL of them will have nothing but good things to say. And that is the price of Neo's "community". To never be a Thinking Person again.
You commented that Christians are unwilling to go against the status quo, but if you pay attention to what I say and do you will find my beliefs quite different from many other voices; Christian and non-Christian alike. After all, I am here posting on an obviously anti-Christian web site which most Christians would hide from; knowing that most who visit here would sooner spew venom than hold a rational discussion.
You showed surprise that I had not “[returned] to press the attack”. In that you are correct. I have not come here to attack you or any of your brothers or sisters. You have your reasons and your right to your opinions and I to mine. But I most certainly reserve the right to disagree with any point you might make even if it makes no sense to you. However, I will endeavor not lash out against you for your views.
Since my last post I have been busy on another thread answering questions; and now that I am done with those I am more than happy to answer yours and discuss topics of interest to you. But I will not respond to someone hissing or attacking. If you wish to converse and discuss the principals of faith (or other topics) then I am willing and will watch this thread until I decide to move on to a new one.
So, to those of you willing to talk with me about your beliefs or who have questions of me, ask. I would ask you all about your own beliefs but after reading so many of these posts I already know that you guys are all over the map. I am willing to discuss any matter but please limit your questions and control your tongues. I am not a scholar or a priest or a learned man but I will do my best to tell you the truth as I know it. Also, if any of you can convince me where I am wrong then post your evidence to prove it. Provide sound judgments to back up your claims and I will listen, but please do not ask 30 questions in a single entry or I will not reply to them. I wish to have a discussion with you, not a fight. I also don’t want to write a book of responses as I have found myself doing in the previous thread.
Lastly, I have a family and do not spend a lot of time online. This is the first blog site I have ever spent time on and I will return to it from time to time to respond. So don’t be surprised if I do not respond for a day or two between posts.
That’s a great question! It has troubled believers and non-believers for centuries. There really isn’t a lot of information about why Jesus said this so I will tell you what I expect of the truth. But, again, I cannot give any hard evidence. We know that Jesus was the Holy Word made in the form of a man and that he was 100% God while being 100% human, since to be human is to take on God’s likeness (it is a subset of God’s characteristics). And, Jesus (The Word made flesh) is only one part of what is called the Holy Trinity: The Father, The Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (or Wisdom). Be aware that the word Trinity never appears in the bible; it is only hinted at on occasion and was coined within the first 200 years after Jesus’ death. Anyway, these three parts work together as “God” just as your heart, hands, eyes and other parts work together to make up who you are. I believe Jesus cried out “My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” because he was disconnected from the other parts of this union. Jesus was aware he was going to suffer and die at the hands of the Jews but when the sins of the world fell upon him God the Father could not bear to watch and turned away. During all of Jesus’ life he was connected to both The Father and The Spirit but at this moment of his death The Father could not look at Jesus because of the world’s sins bearing down upon him. Jesus probably felt the biggest hole in his heart at this moment that anyone can ever know. I presume it to be a like having a best friend who never leaves your side and who always whispers in your ear and laughs with you. Then one day troubles come and without telling you your best friend disappears and you find yourself entirely alone. There is evidence of God not being willing to look at people when evil is upon them so the idea that the Father would look away at that moment is plausible. But as I mentioned, there is little else I can cite to backup my idea.
If I may know, what prompted this question? It is probably the most difficult one any one has ever asked me. If you do not wish to answer, no problem! Your reasons do not require explanation.
Um.... how do we "know" that?
I would like to post a follow up responce to your answer, but first I must ask you another perhaps difficult question, and your answer will determine the outcome and content of my follow up responce back to you.
Question 2
Do you think there is anything a person living today could possibly say or do to convince you that the Bible could possibly be bogas and a man devised fraud?
In other words you seem to be committed to the point of martyrdom for your beliefs, if that is not a correct acessment I do humbly apologize.
I'm not trying to pinpoint you as a religious fanatic, but I'm afraid I may be wasting my time asking you questions, because I have many more and they may get tougher and may challenge your commited faith.
If you would prefer to end our conversation now, I will understand and will still respect your position and your decision.
Thank you for your time.
Read this quick synopsis: click here.
Trinitarian Christianity didn't even exist before 325 CE. It wasn't even a "theory."
Quote: "The Trinitarian view has been affirmed as an article of faith by the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian creeds (circa 500), which attempted to standardize belief in the face of disagreements on the subject."
”I'm not trying to pinpoint you as a religious fanatic, but I'm afraid I may be wasting my time asking you questions, because I have many more and they may get tougher and may challenge your committed faith.” I do not mind the questions nor that you find my faith odd or confusing. And, no, please feel free to ask the questions you have. If they challenge my faith then so be it. If I do not stand on solid principals then I must rethink my arguments.
Jim Arvo, There is a time in any science when the evidence allows you a leap of faith. The existence of Pluto was a mathematical leap of faith for scientists and was later found to be true. In quantum mechanics there are theorists who have verified no less than eleven planes of existence; but recent mathematical evidence points to the existence of at least thirteen of them. In any case they don’t have empirical proof but a bunch of numbers scribbled on paper which may later be found true. Likewise, all of the evidence that supports my faith in the belief of what God did and still does leads me to accept more fully the biblical claim that Jesus was the Word of God made flesh. And, if the bible is to be believed then Christ had to be like us and subject to the same lusts and temptations as the rest of us. Thus I tell you, yes. Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God.
The next time you get a difficult question like Jeff's, just apply Occam's razor (lex parsimoniae)
The most logical explanation would be that since there is no written history of the life of Jesus or his death that was taken down at the time, we have to assume that very few people noticed "Just another Roman Crucifixion," and nobody really heard or cared what he said.
He was theoretically killed because he was a rabble rouser, and was making a nuisance of himself on a Roman Holiday.
It was probably made up, along with the rest of the story, in the years between his supposed death, and the first writings that were ascribed to his contemporaries.
There were people back then who describe him as just a Rabbi, a teacher, not divine, but when the Council of Nicaea, canonized the bible in the "Somewhat present form" these people had to go underground or be fed to the lions.
Constantine wanted a religion with teeth, one in line with the many pagan ones, which had a Messiah fathered by God.
He was by the way going to use it to unite Rome into one belief system, so it had to be magical enough to take the place of a whole bunch of other current beliefs.
Dan (What's a Gnostic to do?)
In everything you write, you exemplify the following maxims:
To the dogmatist, all is dogma. To the religionist, all is religion.
That is, you continually attempt to put everybody else in the same leaky boat that you are in, claiming that we all make leaps of faith. That's complete hogwash, as I've explained perhaps a hundred times on this site. Scientists to not make a "leap of faith" by offering a hypothesis, or constructing a theory. EVERYTHING in science is provisional, and is only as good as the supporting evidence. There is absolutely no need or use for "faith" of any kind.
As for scientists having nothing more than "numbers scribbled on paper", that's about as naive a statement as I have ever heard. I could much more legitimately portray your position as being supported by nothing more than "contradictory and repetitive tall stories written in a book". You see, those "numbers" that you allude to represent objective data--observations that can be repeated by dispassionate scientists and verified over and over. They are open to debate and reinterpretation by anybody who can present a compelling argument and make testable claims. In sharp contrast, your worldview rests upon dogmatic assertions that are shielded from scrutiny by issuing threats and insults to all those who may doubt or disagree.
We are NOT in your boat, which is kept afloat by closing one's eyes and wishing, and by elevating one's imagination to the level of verifiable truth. Those of us who are earnestly attempting to discern what is true and what is not are open to new ideas, and we harbor no dogmas, granting them an exemption from critical analysis. TO those of us who understand what takes place on both sides of the fence, there is no comparison. One side is mired in dogma and wishful thinking, while the other is free to seek what is really so.
You concluded by repeating you mantra "Thus I tell you, yes. Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God.", yet you've presented nothing even approaching a cogent argument for what you believe; you merely wish to assert that our reasoning is in as bad shape as your own, which is demonstrably not the case.
So we're down to the word faith.
So in the beginning there was the word "create" so the creator did not need faith to create.
But some 4000 years later, humans suddenly vehemently need 'faith' in order to believe, yet the creator did not need faith to create, but to believe that Jesus was God the creator and God was Jesus, suddenly people need an abundant amount of faith.
So in the begining of the Bible, faith was not a required commodity. Faith being an substitute for beleiving in something entirely unbelievable.
The word faith had to be applied
and tacked on to the New Testiment Stories as an elective, in order for the unbelievable to appear to be true.
Would you not think that in the
begining of the Bible there was "Faith"? So we start again with,
The Built Upon Faith Bible, according to Believing Christians
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning the creator God needed Faith, so he invented Faith so that many would believe he was infact the one true creator God.
Genesis 1:2 And God invented Faith so that many who would not believe, would cast aside their born-with logic and common reasoning and neatly assume everything written down by ancient superstitious human beings and assembled at the Council of Nicaea, in order for their wish of a virgin birth savior to some day become true.
Genesis 1:3 And so by Faith did God create everything and God said by Faith, let there be light and so God looked and there was no light, but by Faith he knew it was there.
Genesis 1:4 And God created the Heavens and the Earth by using Faith, and he looked and it was not there, but by Faith he knew that it surely must be there.
Genesis 1:5 So by faith, God knew that everything he created was there, yet it was not visible to him, noneless he knew by faith it must be there somewhere.
Genesis 1:6 So now God knew that by using faith, everything is possible, although he could not prove the existance of anything, yet he never lost his faith.
Genesis 1:7 So God now knows that faith can be used to construct any object or belief, regardless of the veracity or proof of an object or fable.
Genesis 1:8 God now finds that faith is the key to all answers of the universe and to all myths and man made fables.
Genesis 1:9 So God now knows that faith is more powerful than physical reality, although he cannot prove it, he prefers faith over reality.
Get the point kiddo?
Faith is the perquisite to belief..without faith the Bible quickly falls apart. Imaginary Faith is the fabric holding the Bible together.
Faith is the invented psuedo glue one must apply over logic and common sense in order to adhere to unbelievable man-made stories and fables.
If faith were a physical commodity, then a creator God would have built the universe using faith instead of physical material objects.
Thank you for your precious time, Neo.
"To Neo, If Jesus is God and God and Jesus are one and the same by way of the trinity, then only by faith can this be true........."
Dan: Jeff! Welcome to the "Anti Christ" club. So the REAL God of true believers becomes an unassailable stubbornness about keeping their "Faith." The cult has done its job.
Once they have switched on the "Faith" button and it has worked on virtually every attempt to get them to apply common sense to their beliefs, they are ready: for the bomb in the back pack, the Kool Aid, the ride on the comet, to volunteer to turn the crank and disembowel, or light the fire under those who have been tortured enough to make then accept the faith!
It is no accident that proselytizing religions like Islam and Christianity are the most powerful. They have replaced the message with an overpowering command to BELIEVE OR PERISH!
Believe and you will get the goodies, don't believe and you get the fire!
Dan (Grateful for my skepticism. It would have been so easy to be just another statistic to the "Faith" virus.)
You write that “there is no written history of the life of Jesus or his death that was taken down at the time.” But there is evidence and plenty of it. If anything, there is too much of it. The four gospels are eye witness accounts of Jesus life recorded by those who lived during it, passed down in the traditional manner of rote memorization and through scribes and learned men. Major parts of these books were written by other people, yes, but to record the eye-witness accounts. It only makes sense that an apostle would spend time telling people of the events while others record them. If you do not accept this evidence because it was not the eye-witnesses who penned the words, what about the existence of four corresponding gospels? Four disparate accounts with four very different viewpoints all telling the same story and matching up very well is very powerful evidence and is why they were canonized (included into the 66 books of the modern bible). It says a lot about the faithfulness of the scribes to record the actual events passed down from the apostles.
Yes, Constantine told the early church to get its story straight. There were many different stories and rumors floating around at the time so it was only right that someone organize them and tell them to go research the truth. So, Constantine told the church to go do this. And there are researchers today still trying to uncover new details and to determine what is true. These researchers have on many occasions found proof that what the bible says is true, and found evidence that books that are not included in the bible should be. What proof do you have that Constantine wanted to create a faith that “had to be magical enough to take the place of a whole bunch of other current beliefs?” After all, he was well known for enriching the temples of heathen gods and his medals were adorned with figures of Jupiter, Apollo, Mars and Hercules. Evidence abounds that he influenced the church hierarchy and practices for his social and political gain, but I have heard of no evidence that Constantine tried to alter Christianity’s beliefs. Instead, it appears to be the Christian apologist Lactantius who convinced Constantine that unity under Christianity would bring all these faiths together.
Jim Arvo,
A theory is exactly that: a leap of faith. It is a set of principals, propositions, practices, examples and reproducible phenomena used to explain something. It is the first step in the scientific process. Once a theory can be proven through further research it becomes a hypothesis, and once the hypothesis withstands the test of time it becomes a scientific fact.
It appears by your reply that you have already accepted that those “numbers” and “dispassionate scientists” are correct even though you have not seen them. There is much evidence of scientists who are very passionate about their work and who misrepresent facts and are motivated by things other than the truth. So there is plenty of evidence that we should be careful when listening to “facts” they present. Take for example statisticians and probability experts. Many of these experts misrepresent facts in surveys and polls for advertisers, so they can legally claim “scientific research shows this…” when it clearly otherwise would not. I used to be a Greenpeace member and was continually astounded when I read numbers they claimed supported their positions. I decided to research some of them and quite easily disproved some of their major assumptions about rain forest deforestation rates and similar science. Scientists are human just as you and I and are thus subject to the same “wishy-washy” thinking or “metal plates” as the rest of us. You attempt to de-lump yourself from the rest of us as though you are somehow not subject to human emotions and influences. Well, good luck with that! It is biblical teachings that remind Christians that they are like everyone else. But the bible also teaches us that we all (both Christians and non-Christians) have the ability to live above the common, petty hatreds and bitterness of the average man. We are reminded that we are not better but that we can live our lives serving rather than arguing or fighting. Are we very good at living according to the faith? Of course not. The temptations that nagged at us before we were believers are still very present in our lives afterward.
Jeff,
When you speak with a person standing next to you, you do not need faith to accept they exist. But if you grow up simply hearing your parents talk about a person you have never met, whom you have no physical evidence even exists, you take it on faith that your parents are not lying to you. If that person then appears at your door, great! You now have incontrovertible proof your parents are trustworthy and you can now evaluate the smaller things they told you about the person. In the case of the bible, if I recall correctly, the stories of Adam and Eve are estimated at around 8,000 years old. How many kids are going to believe their parents when their parents tell them what their parents told them, whose parents told them, etc. At some point you (as the child) simply accept that the stories are reasonably accurate and pass them on to your own children as best you can. And so, faith is a “required commodity” even in the first generation.
As for your revised version of Genesis, this is not proof that supports your argument. If you wish to show evidence that I am incorrect then provide facts or at least strong theories. I don’t mind that you present logical arguments rather than research figures but stand on valid principals and prove your point. You claim I am wrong but provide a blatantly false reading from the Pentateuch. Are you the one wearing the metal plate today? You may freely disagree with my positions but if your evidence is as strong as your opinions then prove it. Tell me how. If I am wrong I will acknowledge it. But if we disagree then I hope we do so amicably. I wish to test my faith and to be certain that my principals are sound, even we disagree.
That is not true. No one knows who wrote the four approved-by-Constantine gospels. The gospels are anonymously written, long after the death of the man called Jesus, and written just for those who had already converted to Christianity. Nothing was written down for several decades because the first messianic believers knew in their hearts, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with the faith of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus would be returning from the dead to give them all a big wet sloppy kiss, and destroy all the evil unbelievers, in their generation. As many of them started dropping dead without a magical return by Jebus, those believers who could actually write had to re-write things a bit.
You just can't have all those converts wandering off to, well, not worship Jebus!
Now, as to this comment of yours: "A theory is a leap of faith."
OMFGIH! LMFAO!
Please keep posting, Neo. You are a wonderful representative of your cult.
Absolutely wonderful.
The more you post, the more encouraged I am that my mind was rescued from that terrible cult.
No. A theory requires no belief whatsoever, and it most certainly does not require acceptance of something that has no supporting evidence (which is what "faith" implies). But let's see how you argue your case...
Neo: "It is a set of principals, propositions, practices, examples and reproducible phenomena used to explain something."
That's reasonably accurate. Okay, I'll agree with that statement.
Neo: "It is the first step in the scientific process. Once a theory can be proven through further research it becomes a hypothesis, and once the hypothesis withstands the test of time it becomes a scientific fact."
Well, you have some of that right. You have "theory" and "hypothesis" backwards. A hypothesis can be a wild conjecture based on nothing but intuition. The word "theory" is reserved for an explanation that has undergone substantive attempts at falsification, and survived. Also, the word "fact" is often used for the lowest-level data in the process; i.e. the raw observations.
But what do you do with these definitions? You abruptly jump to another topic. Where is your argument that a theory is a "leap of faith"? Did I miss it?
Neo: "It appears by your reply that you have already accepted that those 'numbers' and 'dispassionate scientists' are correct even though you have not seen them."
Now isn't that odd. I said nothing even approximating what you suggest. Can you please quote me, and explain how you arrived at that?
Neo: "There is much evidence of scientists who are very passionate about their work..."
Oh, I get it. Since they are "passionate" they are therefore not "dispassionate". Please look up the word dispassionate. Next you'll probably tell me that someone who is not artful has no artistic ability.
Neo: "...and who misrepresent facts and are motivated by things other than the truth. So there is plenty of evidence that we should be careful when listening to 'facts' they present."
Yes, of course! That's precisely why science is a transparent endeavor. That's why findings are published in peer reviewed venues, with sufficient detail that others can reproduce the work. It's a system that words astonishingly well. Those who "cook" their data, are often found out rather quickly. The institution of science stands in stark contrast with religions in this regard. Religions are almost universally concerned with protecting selected dogma, rather than exposing it to the light of day. That, in a nutshell, is why scientists have infinitely greater credibility than clergy.
Neo: "Take for example statisticians and probability experts. Many of these experts misrepresent facts in surveys and polls for advertisers, so they can legally claim 'scientific research shows this…' when it clearly otherwise would not."
Yes, I've seen quite a bit of that. There is a lot of bogus statistical reasoning out there. However, I know a number of statisticians and mathematicians who see it as their duty to expose such shoddy and unscientific thinking. So the system is still self-correcting. Again, I see no self-correcting mechanisms at all within religious circles.
Neo: "Scientists are human just as you and I and are thus subject to the same “wishy-washy” thinking or “metal plates” as the rest of us."
Yes, but there is a quantitative difference, and an institutional difference. The vast majority of scientists understand and recognize common logical fallacies (although they too can fall prey to them), and the institution of science is very specifically set up to mitigate these personal failings. Yet again, this is the opposite of religious institutions, where personal testimony is welcomed and elevated to the level of truth. Falsehoods and biases thrive in the intellectual darkness of religion.
Neo: "You attempt to de-lump yourself from the rest of us as though you are somehow not subject to human emotions and influences."
That is complete claptrap. Now you are simply engaging in ad hominem attacks. Are you that completely out of ammunition? As someone with a deep appreciation for how real science is done, I must acknowledge first and foremost that I am as fallible as anybody else. I continually seek to recognize errors and biases in my own reasoning. I've acknowledged this and explained it numerous times in other posts at this site. You picked a very poor target for that last smear, Neo.
I wrote "If faith were a physical commodity, then a creator God would have built the universe using faith instead of physical material objects."
Not only was that a home run, I knocked the ball out of the park.
If faith is the only evidence needed to believe any story or fable or myth, then Santa Claus is alive and well, just as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, just as Jesus.
Faith based belief can make any imaginative tale become alive in the (mind) of the believer, just as you use faith as fuel to bolster your imaginary image alive in your (mind) concerning a mythical figure, called Jesus.
Faith is the (key) to imaginative beliefs, without the key the character portrayed is locked out of the mind and has no power over the mind.
Faith is the carrot dangling on a rope at the end of a stick to invented lead the donkey (believer) all through the Bible.
Reality in the present requires no faith, no belief nor faith is needed.
You also make the same mistake as all Christians presuming what has been past down through generation through generation could not possibly be untrue, that's just not the case. People have memory lapse, people have amnesia, people get Alzheimer's, people have hearing impairment, people easily misunderstand others.
If by your reasoning, there would have been no need to write anything down because every person would just go around repeating things every person's parent told them and we could just presume everything people told others is completely true.
I'm afraid that you really exposed the problem, especially if a preacher says it, then therefore by the grace of God it bound to be true, and I believe that is the root of the problem of beliefs based on nothing more than a word that was conveniently invented to make people think that their own common sense was not enough to convince them of the fable and myth created to control masses of people and it is still in full effect to this day, because people have been told that by their own accord they are nothing, they just need a little faith, which is nothing more than a pseudo word used to reverse people's logical thinking in order to hypnotize and control and sway a persons mind away from reality and it works very effectively.
Neo, unaware you have indeed proven my point.
You are correct. We do not know who wrote the original gospels but the fact that other writings corroborate them provides evidence they were passed along mostly in tact. Notice that I say mostly. It would be no surprise that the wording has changed or the stories are told in different ways to relay the same messages. So why do you still doubt their truths? Do you refuse to believe because these stories do not align perfectly with one other? If you find absolute unequivocal proof about the existence of God you would have faith in what you see, which is faith in knowledge rather than faith in God. Instead, the evidence is superficially flawed yet you desperately cling to this miniscule evidence and ignore the stronger truths. Why do you love your faithlessness so much? What freedom does it bring you? What joy does it provide to those around you? Does it encourage others to better themselves? Does it bring you closer to knowing who you are or help you become the person you want to be? Does your faithlessness server others or only yourself? Does it even serve you?
Jim Arvo,
“But what do you do with these definitions? You abruptly jump to another topic. Where is your argument that a theory is a "leap of faith"? Did I miss it?” Yes, you missed it. You claimed that a theory is not faith in something unknown, so I countered that it does require faith and cited dictionary evidence. I elaborated by explaining that not until a theory becomes a hypothesis is it based on observations and evidence. However, I find that I was mistaken. A theory has stronger evidence than a hypothesis as you said. In this you are correct. But a theory still requires a leap of faith because the observations and reproducible results do not prove the theory right or wrong. Only scientific facts are not contestable. Still, scientists treat both scientific facts and theories as fact until theories can be either proven or disproven. So the claim that theories are based on faith still stands. And by the way, the church and its “theories” have survived countless attacks on its core principals yet survived. I hope that in time you come to realize them as truth.
As for “cooking” the results of statistics and scientific facts, this kind of trickery has been going on since the dawn of time and is not necessarily illegal or even immoral. Scientific journals, peer reviews and publications are attempts to keep scientists accurate and, yes, to provide transparency. But we are all too familiar with misrepresentations and outright lies that have made it through these scientific checks. To reiterate the point, it is that people in all disciplines are prone toward looking at evidence and seeing things differently and are motivated by a wide variety of influences. They are not necessarily looking to obfuscate the truth nor to make the untrue appear true. Some do, most don’t. I would contend that most people actively seek the truth even if they don’t find it. Sadly though, it only takes a few corrupt people to destroy the respect and honor others deserve. And yes, there are many who do a great job at exposing the frauds.
Your comment about the credibility of clergy versus that of scientists is an opinion that appears to be more of fishing for arguments than one of reason. You have your reasons and I accept them but respectfully disagree. I see each person as trying to find truth and to better understand the world in their own way. Scientists seek truth through knowledge and to help society through discovery. They attempt to keep themselves honest by using peer review processes and publications. Clergy seek to understand God and societies through archeology, sociology and psychology, and to better understand our world through their studies. Clergy also seek to promote honesty and virtue and attempt to keep themselves honest through public professions of faith, public recognition of sin and similar methods. They too use publications and peer review processes but I believe those are for the more scientific endeavors undertaken by the church.
”Falsehoods and biases thrive in the intellectual darkness of religion.” It also cannot be denied that “falsehoods and biases thrive” within religious institutions, as you say, but you cannot deny that it exists everywhere else in life. Sadly, no place is sacred. Is this fact so illogical that you claim it as “ad hominem” evidence? Your claims that somehow the church and clergy are more susceptible to negative influences than any other pursuits are ridiculous. Churches make up a huge portion of our society so one would expect an equivalent level of corruption, but you assume somehow they are more corrupt. That is laughable.
Jeff,
I wrote "If faith were a physical commodity, then a creator God would have built the universe using faith instead of physical material objects." Congratulate yourself all you want, your argument is unsound. The creator DID build the universe using non-physical materials. Ever heard of energy? And now you claim that even Jesus did not exist, well you have a very steep hill to climb on that one. There are quite a few documents and manuscripts that show quite clearly that he did. Besides New Testament writings there are the writings of Josephus, a first century historian, who mentions Jesus on two different occasions and even records the condemnation of James by the Jewish Sanhedrin, clarifying that this James was the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. We also have writings such as the Book of Judas and others that are claimed by their authors to be authentic but which have been proven false, or at least not enough evidence exists to verify their authenticity or falsehood. In addition there is evidence that both Jewish and Roman leaders ordered the writing of fictional accounts of Jesus life and death so they could destroy the ideas that were spreading. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence confirming that Jesus existed and who Jesus was. If we look beyond the years immediately surrounding Christ’s life we also find that Muslims recognized Jesus at this time and recorded him as a prophet, also known as ‘Isa; as did several other religions. Archeologists have found Emperor Nero blaming Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in AD64 in documents written by the Roman Historian Tiberius. We also have writings by Tiberius about the sentence of Pontius Pilatus and about Jesus that further confirm the Gospels. Pliny, a Roman governor of Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan about what to do with the Christians and what they were doing. These many texts verify that Jesus lived yet you reject it. What more can God do than to appear?
================================
To those with whom I have been discussing biblical history,
Our discussions have confused me because I did not understand why you do not see the logic in faith or in the evidence I provide, but recently the answer occurred to me. Everyone I have spoken with on this newsgroup seeks to prove whether or not God exists by using knowledge (or they refuse to seek at all). They either do not care about or do