Awesome post and to the point!

To christians, we have looked to God also and he has left us wanting. Why? Because all the promises and hoopla of the christian faith does not pan out in real life.

Awesome post man!

You can look to St. paul who says in 1 Cor 4:16 "Therefore I urge you to imitate me." or Mother Theresa, St. Therese, Father Damien, Henriette Delille, Father Solanus Casey, Saint Alphonsus Rodriguez, Pope John Paul II. The list goes on and on.
As you look at the lives of these and many other people you will see God at work in their lives and through there lives changing them into the loving people God intended for their and all of our lives

Ah, yes. Mother Theresa. The saint in process who tended sick people in her hospice because "it was God's will that they were sick and would die", rather than send them to the hospital up the street where they could have been treated and cured.

Now there's a saint.

" You can look to St. paul who says in 1 Cor 4:16 "Therefore I urge you to imitate me.""

Are you kidding? Imitate Bible-Paul? A women hater, bitter, self-righteous individual who didn't know how to work with other people?

No thanks!

>> I marginalized and rejected people who lived differently than I, all because I had deluded myself into thinking that I was living differently than them. What a crock. <<

I agree. It is a crock not to be honest with yourself. But just because you deluded yourself, does not mean that we are deluding ourselves. One should not universalize one's own experience.

>> When you can finally show love without condemnation, trust without conditions or sideways glances, and faith without ridiculous set-in-concrete dogmas, then I will leave you alone. <<

How many of us must adhere to your conditions? If one does, will that suffice? Do all need to?


>> REAL friends don't let friends get their asses kicked without jumping in, and TRUE friends wouldn't let you be such fake liars without calling you on it. Maybe Jaysuz did to you what you did to us... turned around and walked away. <<

Sounds like somebody in your church experience (a)let you get your ass kicked without jumping in to your defense, (b)let you be a fake liar without calling you on it and (c)turned around and walked away from you.

That doesn't mean that all Christians do this. You are again universalizing your experience and judging us all based upon those experiences. Surely you see how this is not rational.

>> Imitate Bible-Paul? A women hater, bitter, self-righteous individual who didn't know how to work with other people? <<

1. Paul is not a woman hater. Your (and others) misinterpretation of Paul leads you to believe this, but you are wrong.

2. Paul was not bitter. He stated his many trials and also stated that he learned to be content "in all things."

3. Paul was not self-righteous. Paul offers more than anyone else in the Scriptures a rationale for the righteousness of Christ such that he will not boast in anything but Him.

I don't think you are reading Paul very well.

Computer:

I can also find socially beneficial behavior in non-Christians. Would you say this is God at work as well? I don't know, because you probably won't respond. What I can say is, Christians are wont to display 'good' behavior from others they consider Christians (usually those in a position of power above them, whom they may or may not be giving money to) and call it God at work. But this is not proof of God at work. The Bible does not say this is God at work. I demand Christians show me a verse wherein it states that God is directly at work through a person when they perform socially acceptable behavior.

T&O: Paul wasn't self righteous? "Imitate me" sounds a bit bold to me. And the way he denigrated James (Jesus' brother and the leader of Christianity), and all the apostles "according to the flesh" was pretty damned self-righteous, too. He actually considered his experience on the road to Damascus as more authoritative than the men who lived with Jesus. He was right -- they were wrong. Read Galatians again sometime. I think you are missing a few things.

"And if anyone love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed!" -- Paul.

Whoa. Slow down there christians. I really don't care about 'Paul' or whoever wrote any of that BS.

First and foremost.. All truth is Gods truth.

Prove to me that the imitation-leather bound book you have in front of you is the infallible word of god as it is claimed. difficulty: use external resources.

I know that the bible has been modified and does not even represent the BS that was originally written in it. Therefore, it is fallible, not the words of god.

Read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Erhman. He is an authority on the origins of the new testament scriptures. Then.. come back and join us. You will be welcomed.

Hey! Don't call me T&O. That sounds too close to T.O. who is a great football player but a total jerk! : ) How 'bout T'nO? : )

>> "Imitate me" sounds a bit bold to me. <<

How is 'imitate me' not merely the words of a discipler? If I disciple somebody - or let's say I am a public speaking coach - am I not justified in saying 'imitate me'?

Paul said two interesting things:

1. "I am the least of the apostles and am not fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God."

2. "But by the grace of God, I am what I am."

Paul never claims his own righteousness as either efficacious or laudable. He is humble to the core.

>> And the way he denigrated James (Jesus' brother and the leader of Christianity), <<

>> and all the apostles "according to the flesh" was pretty damned self-righteous, too. He actually considered his experience on the road to Damascus as more authoritative than the men who lived with Jesus. He was right -- they were wrong. Read Galatians again sometime. I think you are missing a few things. <<

In Galatians Paul speaks of opposing Peter's hypocrisy that occurred after some of James' men came to Peter. No problem there. Paul was correct. The issue that Paul is addressing was a key issue in the early Church.

Perhaps I am not understanding the issue you are addressing? Could you provide some references that I can look up? I don't want to argue based on assumptions of what you are saying.

Regards,
T'nO

>> Prove to me that the imitation-leather bound book you have in front of you is the infallible word of god as it is claimed. difficulty: use external resources. <<

I could use the same methods used by Classicists - and I do - to demonstrate the reliability of the Scriptures, that is that the current Greek NT is a reliable facsimilie of the original, though the autographs are unavailable.

>> I know that the bible has been modified <<

It has been modified, but that does not make it unreliable. In fact, we know when and how it was modified and that knowledge helps us go back before any modification to arrive at what was most likely the original.

>> and does not even represent the BS that was originally written in it. <<

Actually, it does represent the original very faithfully - at least as far back as the earliest MSS that we have, which are in the first Century.

>> Read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Erhman. He is an authority on the origins of the new testament scriptures. Then.. come back and join us. You will be welcomed. <<

Bart Erhman - I believe at Chapel Hill - and not himself a Christian since he was at Wheaton - and then probably not even - and I have had conversations via email and there are MANY problems with his interpretations. Though some would consider him 'an authority,' I consider him mistaken on many points. He is hardly the authority that you might think.

==Bart Erhman - I believe at Chapel Hill - and not himself a Christian since he was at Wheaton - and then probably not even - and I have had conversations via email and there are MANY problems with his interpretations. Though some would consider him 'an authority,' I consider him mistaken on many points. He is hardly the authority that you might think.==

Since when does someones religious affiliation equate to expertise?

Well.. How about the bible in front of you. Look at the footnotes and the [[ ]] sections. It will say things like 'This portion of text does not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts'. I recommend going through and marking out with a dark pencil all of such verses.. It completely alters the message. Fascinating.

I would love to hear of your own criteria for determining a correct interpretation and how you have personally come to validate the compilation of books.

What authors do you turn to for guidance? How are they more knowledgeable than scholars like Dr. Ehrman? Keep in mind, much of what Dr. Erhman writes about is actually common knowledge -- just dismissed and invalidated by many for a variety of their own reasons and self interests.

Josephus, the 'historian', is said to have written about him. But he was born after Jesus supposedly died. He also documented the life of Hercules.

The evidence only suggests that these documents exist. It does not verify that they are authentic copies since all we have is a genealogy of copies of copies of copies and no originals and no verifiable authors.

No doubt that a lot of thought and effort went to making up these stories.. Mostly to make it sound credible and to make the christian god better than all of the roman gods. Did you not notice that all of the 'miracles' described in the bible have been done and documented by all of the various roman gods?

All truth is Gods truth. If it isn't true, it isn't gods truth.

>> Since when does someones religious affiliation equate to expertise? <<

It equates with the validity of one's conclusions because it equates with one's assumptions. Erhman's writings are replete with faulty, a priori biases. Obviously, there is no pure theology. Everybody comes to all areas of study with biases. Bart is no exception and he makes more mistakes than you can shake a stick at.

>> Well.. How about the bible in front of you. Look at the footnotes and the [[ ]] sections. It will say things like 'This portion of text does not appear in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts'. I recommend going through and marking out with a dark pencil all of such verses.. <<

I know where they are and they are incredibly few. There are two major passages of such kind: John and Mark. The rest are verses here and there and let me explain what is happening when you see that:

One text family has one rendering while another has a different one. The translators of - say the NIV or the NASB - are making a choice as to the one they prefer for various reasons. To be fair to alternative renderings they offer that there are other possibilities. I can look at my Greek NT and determine every single verse where such a thing occurs and determine why it's there. It isn't that difficult a task.

>> It completely alters the message. Fascinating. <<

Theoretically. An instance is places where "son" of God is left out of newer translations while present in such places as the KJV, which did not have available newer MSS. We can determine that in those places "son" was not likely present, but in other places it is. But the important thing there is that the doctrine of the "son of God" is not held in the balance because of this. That doctrine is clear regardless of its placement in the disputed passages.

>> I would love to hear of your own criteria for determining a correct interpretation and how you have personally come to validate the compilation of books. <<

Simple, though complex. The process of textual criticism (the same basic process of the non-biblical Classicist) helps us determine what words, verses, passages are most likely orginal - or at the very least the most ancient of witnesses. We see emendations occur down the road in various text families, but they are easily accounted for. The process by which one option is chosen over another is also quite simple.

An example: (lectio dificilior) - (note: MS (a) and MS (b) are in the same text family in this example): if a reading in the earlier MS (a) muddies the waters, it is to be preferred to the later MS (b) because the clarity offered by MS (b) probably reflects the desire on the part of a scribe to "fix" the passage according to his knowledge of doctrine or for other various reasons.

>> What authors do you turn to for guidance? <<

All are worthy to be read. Biases are important to understand going in. For instance, your average Harvard, Princeton, Chapel Hill scholar rejects the supernatural due to a priori biases against such. Your average Evangelical scholar starts from a different place - accepting the words at face value and critiquing from there.

>> Josephus, the 'historian', is said to have written about him. But he was born after Jesus supposedly died. He also documented the life of Hercules. <<

That Josephus was born after Christ isnt' terribly relevant. He is merely one ancient historical testimony. Tacitus is another.

But here is one thing that should be realized. Jesus was an intinerant preacher - among many others - whose significance was very local. We should not expect that much contemporary notice of his activities. He was not the talk of the world that He is today.

>> The evidence only suggests that these documents exist. It does not verify that they are authentic copies since all we have is a genealogy of copies of copies of copies and no originals and no verifiable authors. <<

See above. If you believe in any of the personages of the ancient world, you must do the same with Jesus because the way we determine His existence is the same as we determine any others. In fact, take any historical figure. The same holds true.

>> No doubt that a lot of thought and effort went to making up these stories.. Mostly to make it sound credible and to make the christian god better than all of the roman gods. <<

If so much thought and effort went into making up these stories, why are there so many embarrassing additions such as the sins of various disciples? The opposite would, in fact, be expected. What you see in the NT is not a sterilized version of history. The good, bad and ugly are all present.

>> Did you not notice that all of the 'miracles' described in the bible have been done and documented by all of the various roman gods? <<

The OT also records that non-believers in Yahweh had miraculous powers, as well. This is basic Christian theology.
All truth is Gods truth. If it isn't true, it isn't gods truth.

References are from Galatians:

1:1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

In other words, Paul is asserting his authority is magical, unlike the man-chosen apostles of the Jewish Church. He is better, in his mind.

1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Right, James and those he sent are perverting the Gospel. But Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh, was never chosen by Jesus in the flesh, and who didn't even bother linking up with the original apostles knows better than they do on how things are supposed to be run. Uh huh. It looks to me like you aren't really comprehending what is going on here. Paul is building his version of his new religion. James and Peter are wrong, and Paul is right? Why would you assume that? Because of the other Pauline epistles? Because of the Acts of the Apostles, which was obviously written by a Paul follower?

"1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Well, that's something! Paul is asserting more authority for his message than angels, apostles, or anyone or anything! And those who came from James, the LEADER OF THE CHURCH, should be eternally condemned. Nice.

" 10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

In other words, "I don't care what James or Peter say -- I'm right and they are wrong. Listen to me!

Anyway, the missive goes on and on that vein. Paul is this, Paul is that. Paul this. Paul that. Everyone else is a loser in comparison to mighty Paul.

Listen T&O, your blinders are showing. If some preacher started talking like this Paul, that his authority was superior to the apostles according to the flesh, based on his spiritual experiences, would you follow him? If not why not?

When are these christians going to quit using the excuse, "Not All Christians Act Like This"?

I will remind every christian idiot who posts on here, that it is "YOUR BIBLE" that we are basing most of these truths on about your christian faith being nothing but a lie. It's not based on what some dumb ass christian did or what they said.

There are many of us who post on here who have taken your "So Called Truths" from your "Bible" and applied them to our lives in the past, and it didn't work out. It had nothing to do with "what other christians did or said" it had to do with your book "The Bible" being a bunch of Bullshit.

Notice how christians like to put the blame along with their own irresponsibility on their own God with their own statements. Of course we have the typical overused statement, "God didn't do it Satan did it" or "It's all because of man's free will", which is nothing but 2 lame excuses that christians come up with.

I guess then that God is not powerful enough to stop Satan, and it seems that God is not powerful enough to have control over man's free will. Just like he wasn't powerful enough to bring man back to himself without sacrificing a man on the cross. Wait a minute! That man (Jesus) was God. God committed suicide by having himself killed.

It's also our fault that all of these sins happened in the first place, even though none of us existed back then. So everyone who is living right now sinned, and we ate that fruit out of the "Garden of Eden" and I personally took nails and "Physically" nailed Jesus to a cross 2,000 years ago, even though I didn't live back during that time period. Right? *Rolls Eyes*

That is the reasoning behind what christian fundies believe.

As far as the men and apostles who were supposedly "Under God's Influence" or were "Inspired By God" when they wrote the bible, these same people are nothing but a bunch of dead rotten corpses lying in the ground with worms eating on their decaying bodies.

Doesn't matter what "The Bible Says" Quoting scripture does not mean shit to people like myself.
So those of you who quote scripture can shove the bible up your asses.

As far as the almighty "Apostle Paul" is concerned, he was a friggin' loser, who hated women. He probably couldn't get dates with women. Or he was mad because his girlfriend walked out on him, because she didn't let her control him with his "Chauvenistic" attitude.

Most christians who post on here with their little "defense" have no idea what they are talking about.

The fact remains that Christianity is losing ground more and more everyday, and a lot of christians are starting to panic, because their precious Jesus has not come back to redeem them in this battle that they are continuing to lose here on planet Earth.

Thank Goodness for Secular Countries like Australia, where christianity is only around 3 percent.

It's no wonder that countries such as "Australia" have an educational system that is so much more further ahead than what the United States Educational System is. They don't rely on some Dumb Ass Mythical God. They believe in progress, and moving on in order to benefit mankind in ways that are practical.

I also praise every single "Human Secularist" who is out there.

Most christians who defend God by running their mouths and quoting scripture on a continuous basis would reject Jesus if they were ever really face any type of "Real Persecution" that involved physical torture. 99 percent of christians are nothing but mouth, and pure talk who don't know how to do nothing else but go around cramming their values down someone else's throat and beating their bibles.

Christians do a lot of talking (Bible Quoting) and "Talk Is Cheap" and christians do a lot of it.

If their God exists, then he is the only one who can prove he is real, and there is nothing that no 2,000 year old book or some christian can say or do to prove any different to me.

No christian or their 2,000 year old text has any credibility with me.

I rest my case.

Ah Yes God is at work making Christians wonderful people.

Why is it that christians raise up a few rare individuals as an example of how great christians are?

Yet the divorce rate in the church is slightly higher then in the "real world". Pornography is running near rampant among ministers. Child abuse and molestation is becoming more and more the norm in churches.
Christians are sarcastic and mean and un-giving to the needy when it might hurt their lifestyle.
Yes God is doing a great work in his people!

Just because a few rare saints are doing something good does not mean that is the norm among Christians. If anything it is a rarity.

Poltergoost,

Good stuff. Enjoyed reading your post. Keep it up.

Ok... here goes:

Computer: Don't EVER ask me to imitate the wafer-beggars in the Catholic Church's canon of 'saints'. Magician-priests with special powers to make dead-body-cookies and mystically interpret books belong in the fucking movies, not in any arena dedicated to benefiting mankind. By the way, any of the 'saintly' things those people have done have also been done by adherents to other religions and none at all, such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick, teaching the ignorant and on and on.

T&O (or T&A, or TWA, or TNT or whatever), you asked:

"How many of us must adhere to your conditions? If one does, will that suffice? Do all need to?"

DAMN straight, ALL need to, otherwise your super ghostie is sleepin' on the job. Your apost-hole 'John' says that anyone who does not love his brother is a liar and has not God. Period. Your Paulie-boy says you are to kick the disobedient gossip-mongers and self-righteous pricks OUT. There. Now, turn off the fucking whine-o-matic and go bring some god-damned integrity to your religion.
Another thing, T'n'O: Yes, in fact, I DID get my ass kicked emotionally a bunch of times. Are you happy now? Were you waiting with a little religious hard-on to see if I would break because you hit a touchy subject? Tough shit. Fact is, friend, that if I can't make some pretty safe statements about the genuineness of Xtianity from the vast wealth of experiences I've had, then there's a whole lot of other shit we can't assume, either, cause it's all done on a LOT less evidence:

Do you ASSUME that the cars stopping at that red light are all going to stop before they cross the intersection and ram you? NO ONE checks the cross-traffic every time, so we better not drive if we can't be sure.

Do you ASSUME that the registered sex offenders in your area are fucking sickos, no matter what rehab they may have had? Fine... you send your kids to their house. Fuck'd if I'd send mine, EVER.

Truth be told, going to a church and hoping to not get shit on again is a game of Russian Roulette, and, baby, I ain't stupid. Let someone else pull the fucking trigger; I've got a life to live and I'm not betting on your ghostie to show up anytime soon.

Webmast: Thanks. That is helpful so we are starting from the same page.

First, you believe the Paul believes himself to be superior to the other Apostles because while they were chosen by a 'man,' he, himself, was chosen by Jesus. In fact, Paul recognizes that they were all equally chosen by Jesus.

Paul is telling the Galatians that his authority is derived directly from Jesus and not the Apostles - not to place himself over and against the Apostles, but to place himself on the same plane - a legitimate Apostle, chosen by Jesus just as they were.

Second, the MAIN issue in the early Church (Acts 15) centers on "what does a Gentile need to do to become a Christian." The Judaizers taught that one needed to first become a Jew and then come into "the Way."

Peter agreed initially with Paul's argument that fellowship with Gentiles was acceptable, but after some came "from James" he stopped doing so. Paul admonished Peter that he was in the wrong - for the theological statement he makes in 2:16. Therefore, whether those who "came from" James were sent by him or were merely those who associated with him, they were still wrong and Paul addresses it.

You have as much right to disagree with Paul's ultimate position as Paul had to disagree with Peter's. If I disagree with another that does not make me proud or haughty. It simply makes puts me in disagreement and such can still be done from a place of humilty.

For some reason you believe that Paul not having met Jesus "in the flesh" makes him less of an Apostle than the others. You're in good company. Some of the Galatians obviously believed that, as well, thus the need for Paul to assert that meeting Jesus at all is his source of authority - not when the meeting occurred. And yes, Peter and maybe James were wrong in believing that Gentiles first needed to be Jews in order to be Christians. Though you are free to disagree with that position.

By the way, I believe Paul is right based upon (a)my reading of Paul and his persuasive argumentation and (b)my knowledge of the OT.

Paul is definitely asserting his theological position and warns hid disciples that the theology he presented to them was the true and correct theology that nobody had the right to abrogate. This is the prerogative of an Apostle and we are free to disagree with his conclusions on the theology. So far the Church has not.

But again, your belief that this somehow makes Paul self-righteous or proud is not borne out by the facts. In fact, it is a faulty argument. It seems to stem from a belief you have that for one person to say that his position is the correct position is a proud position or haughty position.

If I say it is always better to feed the poor than to ignore the poor, does that assertion make me proud? If I say that nobody else can possibly be right and if anyone tries to tell you the opposite, be assured that they are wrong and I am right - does this make my proud or haughty? In your eyes probably not, but only because you agree with me on that particular position. Where you disagree with me on a position you are likely to discount my assertion as proud. That is what you are doing with Paul.

You are subscribing terms to others "loser" etc. that Paul would not subscribe to them. He proposed a theological position that is correct and states that no matter who argues against it, they are wrong - as well they are. Free to disagree, but probably not to ascribe to Paul that which you do not know about him - his humility vs his pride. You are attempting what is called a "psycho-history" of Paul - a discipline in its infancy and fraught with peril.

I hope I was clear on that. Thanks for the discussion. I find you thoughtful and - somewhat - fair. : )

Now to others who ... not so much. : )

>> There are many of us who post on here who have taken your "So Called Truths" from your "Bible" and applied them to our lives in the past, and it didn't work out. <<

That would take some explication. What was tried that did not work out?

>> I guess then that God is not powerful enough to stop Satan, and it seems that God is not powerful enough to have control over man's free will. <<

First, he is powerful and has stated that Satan's powers are limited.

Second, for God to be "powerful enough to have control over man's free will" would create an oxymoron. If he exercised the power He surely has to override man's free will, it would cease to be free will. Free will is either free or it isn't. It can't be a combination.

>> Just like he wasn't powerful enough to bring man back to himself without sacrificing a man on the cross. <<

He can do it in any way He wanted, but He chose the OT way of sacrifice. There is an extensive theology behind the substitutionary death of Jesus, but suffice it to say that it isn't a matter of ability on God's part, but a matter of His will to do it in that way.

>> It's also our fault that all of these sins happened in the first place, even though none of us existed back then. <<

Not exactly. It isn't your fault, but the sin of Adam/Eve created a sinful, fallen world that everybody inherits.

>> That is the reasoning behind what christian fundies believe. <<

It may be the reasoning that the misinformed believe, but it is not Christian theology.

>> As far as the men and apostles who were supposedly "Under God's Influence" or were "Inspired By God" when they wrote the bible, these same people are nothing but a bunch of dead rotten corpses lying in the ground with worms eating on their decaying bodies. <<

There is no theology that I know of which requires those inspired to record God's words and deeds to have lived forever rather than decayed in the earth. I think that argument is fallacious in many ways.

>> As far as the almighty "Apostle Paul" is concerned, he was a friggin' loser, who hated women. <<

That is a misinterpretation of Paul. He places Priscilla before Aquila in almost all of his mentions of them because SHE was the leader of the two spouses, was more than Aquila responsible for instructing Apollos and he considered Junias (female) an apostle. I could go on regarding your misinterpretation of Paul and women, but it is an extensive issue. Suffice it to say you couldn't be more wrong. But you are in good company because many are confused.

>> The fact remains that Christianity is losing ground more and more everyday, and a lot of christians are starting to panic, because their precious Jesus has not come back to redeem them in this battle that they are continuing to lose here on planet Earth. <<

I have never heard nor seen in Christian print the idea that we are panicking for any of the reasons you state. But perhaps I should tell all my friends to start panicking? : ) Christianity is doing just fine. We are experiencing more growth in the non-Western world and more falling away in the Western world. Such are the ebbs and flows of life.

>> Thank Goodness for Secular Countries like Australia, where christianity is only around 3 percent. <<

You might check your numbers again. They are more in the range of 50%-65% depending upon source. But this is a trivial argument. Christianity isn't validated by its numbers and is not invalidated by them. No religion is for that matter.

>> Most christians who defend God by running their mouths and quoting scripture on a continuous basis would reject Jesus if they were ever really face any type of "Real Persecution" that involved physical torture. <<

You may be right. Persecution purifies the Church and makes people stand up and be counted. There are certainly those who don't take it very seriously and may "cultural" Christians more than "religious" Christians. The same is true of all religions.

>> I rest my case. <<

I doubt that. : )

(HELP: can someone tell me why I always have to type in the Word Verification twice to get through? Do I really get it wrong every time or is this an added security feature? Thx.)

Ooops. Skipped this one:

>> "How many of us must adhere to your conditions? If one does, will that suffice? Do all need to?"

DAMN straight, ALL need to, otherwise your super ghostie is sleepin' on the job. Your apost-hole 'John' says that anyone who does not love his brother is a liar and has not God. Period. Your Paulie-boy says you are to kick the disobedient gossip-mongers and self-righteous pricks OUT. There. <<

And so if all do - thus, perfection is achieved - then you'll come back? No. I don't see that happening. It's a straw man - Christians are just so...therefore I am not a Christian. That just won't cut it before God.

>> Another thing, T'n'O: Yes, in fact, I DID get my ass kicked emotionally a bunch of times. Are you happy now? <<

No, not happy. But it is almost axiomatic now that the angriest "ex-Christians" are those who were wronged. Yes, I've been wronged by other Christians, too - even a pastor. I just choose to disassociate with those who are not friendly to me. But I don't disassociate from Christ on their behalf. That's throwing myself out with the bathwater. Silly.

>> Fact is, friend, that if I can't make some pretty safe statements about the genuineness of Xtianity <<

But you are not. You are making statements about some Christians and generalizing that to Christendom. That is specious.

>> Truth be told, going to a church and hoping to not get shit on again is a game of Russian Roulette, and, baby, I ain't stupid. <<

So be a Christian in your own life not connected to a Church unless and until you can find a safe bunch. Disassociating from Christ only punishes you, not Christ.

I have heard many like you who come back to Christ say that they thought they were somehow punishing Christ by leaving in the same way that they might punish their parents by running away. Sorry but Christ is not punished by your departure. Saddened, yes, but not beaten down by you for it.

T&O, Paul admits he only knows a mystical, magical, Jesus. He never knew Jesus, unlike the rest of the apostles.

All the rest of your apologetic on behalf of Paul is from Paul's mouth. Of course it is all supportive of him! You have been taught to see all this from one perspective, and you are completely blind to what is going on between the lines here. Why do you think Gnosticism took off in such a big way? Could it be because Paul taught that mystical union with Jesus was better than the weak religion of the flesh?

"He (Paul) proposed a theological position that is correct and states that no matter who argues against it, they are wrong - as well they are."

The reality is, without Paul's epistles and his apologetic story book of Acts, you'd have to theology at all. Jesus certainly is never credited with teaching Pauline theology. Paul is the real founder of the Catholic (Universal) Church and Paul's harsh rhetoric planted within that church the seeds and justification for anti-antisemitism.

You applaud Paul for standing up to Peter and resisting those sent from James. But we don't have Peter or James' side of the story, do we? We only have Paul's side. James and the original movement founded by the man Jesus fades unceremoniously into history.

Paul's mysticism, in part by his ability to communicate it, caught on, as we all know. Then, in the Fourth Century, the Roman Emperor Constantine makes a political move to unite his army. By that time the old gods were falling out of vogue, replaced by dozens if not hundreds of versions of the Jesus cult. Poor Constantine needed some unity. Everyone arguing over religion all the time was not in the best interest of a conquering Emperor. So, he ordered the clerics to get together and decide which version of this religion was the correct one, and he made that version the law.

All those Christians who didn't adhere to and accept the mandated "orthodox" beliefs and the "approved" Christian writings were denigrated as heretics, and hunted into extinction. Their books were burned, their memories erased. Fortunately Nag Hammadi preserved what "legal" Christianity tried to destroy.

When you are only hearing one side of a position, that side seems perfectly correct. I've heard both.

"I have heard many like you who come back to Christ say that they thought they were somehow punishing Christ by leaving in the same way that they might punish their parents by running away."

I no longer believe in the mythology of a flying un-dead god-man who is really three persons but separate from the other two persons in a mystical and magical way. I for one do not think I am punishing anyone. I no longer believe this nonsense. Your assumptions are erroneous. Oh, and I am 49 years old. I could care less what my parents think about anything.

Trained 'n' Ordained asked:
"...can someone tell me why I always have to type in the Word Verification twice to get through? Do I really get it wrong every time or is this an added security feature?..."

Depends on how long it took you to type your post. Each of the word-verification words has a time limit on it, so that it doesn't become common knowledge for spammers. For one- or two-sentence posts, you will probably fall within the time limit window for that password, but for longer posts, the time will have expired for it and a new one will have taken its place. For slow typists like myself, that happens almost every time.

A handy tip: Periodically hit Ctrl-A to Select All, and then Ctrl-C to copy what you've typed so far. That way, if your browser acts up, or there is some glitch on the net, you can Ctrl-V paste it into NotePad or somewhere so that you don't have to retype the whole shootin' match all over again. Hope this helps.

Won't do much to bolster your theology though. There probably never was a Jesus, but if there was, he was just a guy.

That Paul was self-righteous and arrogant, especially given his spurious origins as an apostle, I accept as given. 14 out of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul (although a good many of them were apparently written by Marcion...). He denounces the actions of Apostles who walked with Jesus for years, while he himself never even MET Jesus and spent quite some time persecuting his followers.

It´s enough to believe Paul was an active saboteur of Christianity... and he succeeded.

The least you can say is that EVEN THE FIRST GENERATION OF CHRIST´S FOLLOWERS, INCLUDING HIS INNER CIRCLE, could not even agree among each other. Pardon my French, but that is just fucking PATHETIC. Holy Ghost, my ass. Human opinions (ideals, if you insist).

Oh, and Paul not sexist? This Paul:

"I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent."

?


-Leonard

TO, you said:

"So be a Christian in your own life not connected to a Church unless and until you can find a safe bunch. Disassociating from Christ only punishes you, not Christ."

>>Well, your fundie friends and their Bahble tell me that you are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. It seems you Xtians have this church thing as pretty much a law. What you fail to see through your rose-colored glasses is that 'god' is never the one doing the judging. Xtianity handles that. That's why I don't want anything to do with him/it if he/it coincides with your view of him/it. He/it allows your people to act shitty in his/its name.

"I have heard many like you who come back to Christ say that they thought they were somehow punishing Christ by leaving in the same way that they might punish their parents by running away. Sorry but Christ is not punished by your departure. Saddened, yes, but not beaten down by you for it."

>>Now you're the one making the big assumptions. I don't believe I am punishing anyone, especially a flying Jewish zombie. I just don't want anything to do with this HUMAN endeavor known as Xtianity. To me, it's no different than if I didn't like a certain restaurant. The food here sucks; you eat it if you like it... I hate it.

By the way, when it comes to generalizations and so on, let me leave you with another analogy... I'm not nearly as pithy as others, but I'm a Buddhist, so I love analogies. Here's one:

A fire hose shoots water at an incredible pressure, enough to seriously injure or even kill a person if it were directed at them. Ergo, I do not let anyone even think about pointing one at me... I won't go somewhere where they would, either. Now, since I know what the fire-hose is capable of, would I be sane if I let someone point one at me while I HOPED and PRAYED that THIS ONE fire-hose MIGHT be the rational, caring, mentally-balanced one that WON'T hurt or kill me?

You guys regularly open the hose on others. I've seen and felt its effects. None for me, thanks; I've had enough.

Oh, and don't bother with the "Jesus isn't like that" crap. I've never met the guy. Save the "ooohh, you've never MET him!" argument, too. There is NO mystical Jayzus trying to 'speak' to my brain like a disembodied Jiminy Cricket. 'Gods' powerful enough to be undead and fly, but not powerful enough to appear and talk like a normal person are of no value to me. By the way, if you come back with, "but 500 people saw him alive"... I'll laugh till I puke. Can there REALLY have been NO redactions, reductions, removals and obfuscations of the truth in documents that YOUR holy priests use to justify their power? Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahaha...

W'll Train'd n' Ind'ctr'nat'd Psych'ph'nt: "...That doesn't mean that all Christians do this. You are again universalizing your experience and judging us all based upon those experiences. Surely you see how this is not rational."

I think you missed the entire point of the post - he get's that already.

“>> What authors do you turn to for guidance? <<

All are worthy to be read. Biases are important to understand going in. For instance, your average Harvard, Princeton, Chapel Hill scholar rejects the supernatural due to a priori biases against such. Your average Evangelical scholar starts from a different place - accepting the words at face value and critiquing from there.”

No, no, no. Fuck the intellectual debate. Fuck the comparison of texts and authors and documents and references.
It makes me sick when christians think they’re proving something by getting all deep into the scholarship and textual criticism and the minute historical points.
Who cares if the documents are accurately translated or not?

Either way the content of those texts is still fairytale bullshit.
The theology of christianity is bullshit.
The historical setting is irrelevant.

It's okay for those who don't beleive in fairytales to debate such historical documents intelligently, in their own way, but fairytale believing christians can't do the same. Sorry.

So there may be proof for a historical preacher named Jesus who got 'mentioned by Tacitus'? There really was a 'Paul'? There really was a church at Ephesus, and Corinth, etc?
Irrelevant.

It doesn’t take an education or an ego to know that:
- People do not die then come back to life after 3 days.
- Virgins do not conceive.
- Eternal hell does not really exist.
- Snakes don’t talk, magic is not real, Satan is just a standard boogeyman, etc, etc.

No supernatural resurrection = no basis for christianity.

There's no solid irrefutable evidence for such a supernatural thing, therefore there's no moral obligation for me to accept it, or be held liable if I don't.

“But here is one thing that should be realized. Jesus was an intinerant preacher - among many others - whose significance was very local. We should not expect that much contemporary notice of his activities. He was not the talk of the world that He is today.”

Other things supposedly happened, on an historical scale, in the gospels that aren’t recorded in any other source, eg. the dates of reigns of the various rulers, the requirement for all people to return to their home cities for a census, the mass killing of the firstborn, the mass rising out of the graves of the dead at the crucifixion who then came into the city to talk with everybody(!)...
If any of these things really happened they would have been recorded by every historian in the region and talked about around the Empire.

“If you believe in any of the personages of the ancient world, you must do the same with Jesus because the way we determine His existence is the same as we determine any others. In fact, take any historical figure. The same holds true.”

As it does for mythical figures too… including all those other solar heroes who died and rose again at the winter solstice, bringing the promise of rebirth, new life, etc.

“If so much thought and effort went into making up these stories, why are there so many embarrassing additions such as the sins of various disciples? The opposite would, in fact, be expected.”

It’s called good story telling, myth making, hero worship. Everybody around the godlike hero is flawed …so they need to be saved by the saviour who saves.

I suppose they didn't go into the zodiacal solar hero mythology when you were being trained and indoctrinated at bible college...?

“He can do it in any way He wanted, but He chose the OT way of sacrifice.”

He could also have chosen some system of reincarnation where we get multiple chances to realise the ‘truth’, by which method everybody would eventually be saved
…but bible-god chose the one-shot-then-eternal-hellfire system, so fuck him.

He should have stayed in his state of total perfection and never have created us in the first place (except then he wouldn’t get that filtered elite corps of psychophants who will stroke his ego for the rest of eternity either…).

“There is no theology that I know of which requires those inspired to record God's words and deeds to have lived forever rather than decayed in the earth. I think that argument is fallacious in many ways.”

Have you not read:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom…"?

“But you are in good company because many are confused.”

"God is not the author of confusion..."?

"No, not happy. But it is almost axiomatic now that the angriest "ex-Christians" are those who were wronged. Yes, I've been wronged by other Christians, too - even a pastor. I just choose to disassociate with those who are not friendly to me. But I don't disassociate from Christ on their behalf. That's throwing myself out with the bathwater. Silly."

Angry or not we've all been wronged, including you - by christianity itself.
It's a psychological mindrape that plays on our fears and hopes to keep us locked in its system of control.

Anger is the fear killer.

“Sorry but Christ is not punished by your departure. Saddened, yes, but not beaten down by you for it.”

If he’s so sad about it why does hell exist?
Oh, that’s right, he only wants the hardcore psychophants.

>> T&O, Paul admits he only knows a mystical, magical, Jesus. He never knew Jesus, unlike the rest of the apostles. <<

We'll just have to agree to disagree that meeting Jesus post-resurrection and being given that authority is equal to the Apostles who walked with Him.

I think it's ironic that you would pair Paul with Gnosticism since (a)you are so concerned about his writings and (b)nothing is in his writings to imply he has a Gnostic view of the Kingdom. Ask Elayne Paegels if Paul is a Gnostic.

Re: anti-Semitism from Paul’s writings:

Paul states that wishes that he, himself, could be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brothers. His passion for his people coming to know Jesus is clear. Whatever anti-Semitism arose out of a misunderstanding of Paul can hardly be placed on Paul.

Your comments on Constantine are worthy. As a political/military leader he needed unity. But it would be your a priori bias against him seeing a cross ('by this sign conquer') that would lead you down the road you've gone. He would also have been one of the few who could have called together such a group to determine what was heretical and what was not. A worthy endeavor to be sure.

>> When you are only hearing one side of a position, that side seems perfectly correct. I've heard both. <<

My master's degree tells me that I have heard both sides. : )

eel - thanks for the tips about the verification. That must be what was happening.

>> That Paul was self-righteous and arrogant, especially given his spurious origins as an apostle, I accept as given. 14 out of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed to Paul (although a good many of them were apparently written by Marcion...).<<

Written by Marcion.... It's difficult to have rational dialogue with irrational statements like that. What elven fairy told you that was the case?

>> Oh, and Paul not sexist? This Paul: "I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent." <<

Before I answer that, I'll give you some homework:
1. Determine why Paul chose the word he chose for "authority" instead of the one he did not choose and provide the semantic ranges for both.
2. Tell me something about where the letter was written to and what was happening in (a)that community and (b)the church community in that local that helps us understand the sentence.
3. Tell me something about the Greek tense for "I do not" that helps us undestand the sentence.

>> A fire hose shoots water at an incredible pressure, enough to seriously injure or even kill a person if it were directed at them. Ergo, I do not let anyone even think about pointing one at me... I won't go somewhere where they would, either. Now, since I know what the fire-hose is capable of, would I be sane if I let someone point one at me while I HOPED and PRAYED that THIS ONE fire-hose MIGHT be the rational, caring, mentally-balanced one that WON'T hurt or kill me? <<

Your personal experiences, though apparently tragic, are just that - your personal experiences. To externalize and universalize those experiences is not rational.

>> No, no, no. Fuck the intellectual debate. Fuck the comparison of texts and authors and documents and references. It makes me sick when christians think they’re proving something by getting all deep into the scholarship and textual criticism and the minute historical points.

Who cares if the documents are accurately translated or not? <<

Well, that's a rational position to take. Watch it or the other atheists will kick you out of the "we're the only ones who submit our lives to reason" club. : )

>> Either way the content of those texts is still fairytale bullshit.<<

That's an a priori bias. You must realize that such biases are intellectually inferior to accepting all ideas with an open and reasoning mind until you arrive at a conclusion.

>> It's okay for those who don't beleive in fairytales to debate such historical documents intelligently, in their own way, but fairytale believing christians can't do the same. Sorry. <<

You obviously have no training in historiography.

>> It doesn’t take an education or an ego to know that:
- People do not die then come back to life after 3 days. <<

No, it just takes an a prior bias against such beliefs. It takes a rational, thinking person to consider otherwise.

>> No supernatural resurrection = no basis for christianity. <<

True.

>> There's no solid irrefutable evidence for such a supernatural thing, therefore there's no moral obligation for me to accept it, or be held liable if I don't. <<

It depends upon what you want for proof. There is no acceptable proof for the existence of any ancient personage - unless you accept documentary evidence. And then if you choose to believe in Tacitus using all of the accepted means of such inquiry, then you must also be open to believing that Jesus existed.

>> Other things supposedly happened, on an historical scale, in the gospels that aren’t recorded in any other source, eg. the dates of reigns of the various rulers, the requirement for all people to return to their home cities for a census, the mass killing of the firstborn, the mass rising out of the graves of the dead at the crucifixion who then came into the city to talk with everybody(!)... If any of these things really happened they would have been recorded by every historian in the region and talked about around the Empire. <<
Perhaps. Not all ancient events show up in the records either because the records aren’t available or because it wasn’t as big a thing as we assume it must have been from our perspective. That is reading in to history what we want to see rather than letting history communicate something to us. It’s an argument from silence.

>> He could also have chosen some system of reincarnation where we get multiple chances to realise the ‘truth’, by which method everybody would eventually be saved
…but bible-god chose the one-shot-then-eternal-hellfire system, so fuck him. <<

He could have chosen many different methods. He chose the one that is your option and which establishes that connection with the Old Covenant that was pointing to Jesus.

>> “There is no theology that I know of which requires those inspired to record God's words and deeds to have lived forever rather than decayed in the earth. I think that argument is fallacious in many ways.”

Have you not read:
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom…"? <<

That verse does not "require those inspired to record God's words and deeds to have lived forever." It merely says that some won't live until they see a particular event, which they did post-resurrection.

>> "God is not the author of confusion..."? <<

No, but confusion exists because (a)Satan brings it and (b)sin brings it.

>> Angry or not we've all been wronged, including you - by christianity itself.
It's a psychological mindrape that plays on our fears and hopes to keep us locked in its system of control. <<

Yes, I've been wronged. But I didn't internalize it and curl up into a ball. I externalized it and recognized the sinful place from which it was coming - out there in that person(s). To internalize it is to become self-injurious after the fact and to universalize it to all of Christianity is to no longer be a rational, thinking person.

>> If he’s so sad about it why does hell exist?
Oh, that’s right, he only wants the hardcore psychophants. <<

Good cannot coexist with evil and evil requires the greatest of consequences.
Not all Evangelicals believe in hell. That is due to interesting reasons. I think there is plenty of room for debate on the matter.

Spacemonk: Either way the content of those texts is still fairytale bullshit.

TnO's response: That's an a priori bias. You must realize that such biases are intellectually inferior to accepting all ideas with an open and reasoning mind until you arrive at a conclusion.

If it's an "a priori bias" to deduce that the claims/stories of the supernatural, or "meta-physical", are by definition, beyond the natural or physical universe, then we would literally have to investigate every single claim, no matter how ridiculous, because where the supernatural is concerned, anything could be "possible". ANYTHING.

So, sans investigation, dismissing Joseph Smith and his encounter with Marconi; dismissing Snow White and the Dwarfs; dismissing Jack's bean stalk, and on and on and on, would be "a priori bias", as well. Yet, amusingly, the Christian dismisses, a priori, all those things and many more, without thorough investigation; without keeping an "open and reasoning mind". Anyone see the double-standard?

TnO: No, but confusion exists because (a)Satan brings it and (b)sin brings it.

Of course, there's no such thing as either, but for sake of argument, those things, if they existed, would exist because, either a) biblegod allows it, or b) biblegod is too impotent to stop it. Either way, "He" has no business being "GOD".

The logic of Christianity is....is...well, there IS no logic.

T&O:"All are worthy to be read. Biases are important to understand going in. For instance, your average Harvard, Princeton, Chapel Hill scholar rejects the supernatural due to a priori biases against such. Your average Evangelical scholar starts from a different place - accepting the words at face value and critiquing from there."

So would you admit that you have a priori bias against allah? How about Ra? How about all the other gods that man could believe in?

also:"Your personal experiences, though apparently tragic, are just that - your personal experiences. To externalize and universalize those experiences is not rational."

***One can look at supernatural claims in such a way as well. So what if someone a long time ago claimed to see superfantastical visions and attributed them to a deity. Could just be their brian gettin' out O' whack. If I don't have a similar experience and you cannot show evidence of such experiences then that leaves your claim of the supernatural realm on equal ground as anyone elses' claim. No different than tales of fairy magic and leprichans and invisible pink unicorns.



also:"I just choose to disassociate with those who are not friendly to me."

I did the same thing when jebus didn't help me when I needed him to. It wasn't other christians that did it to me.

And:" But it would be your a priori bias against him seeing a cross ('by this sign conquer') that would lead you down the road you've gone."

See ***above

T&O:"Good cannot coexist with evil and evil requires the greatest of consequences."

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Booya!

>> If it's an "a priori bias" to deduce that the claims/stories of the supernatural, or "meta-physical", are by definition, beyond the natural or physical universe, then we would literally have to investigate every single claim, no matter how ridiculous, because where the supernatural is concerned, anything could be "possible". ANYTHING. <<

I'm ok with opening up all questions to all of the investigative processes at our disposal. Atheists are not. They pretend to be reasoning in their approach, but that is a ruse. It's an emotional and psychological masturbation meant to make themselves feel better about themselves vis-a-vis believers of any stripe.

Let all claims be subject to the same inquiries. Atheists don't start from that position. They start from "there is nothing that is not natural." Hence, they are absolutists on only those points which serve them the best.

>> for sake of argument, those things, if they existed, would exist because, either a) biblegod allows it, or b) biblegod is too impotent to stop it. Either way, "He" has no business being "GOD". <<

If God allows evil to exist, it is because He gave Adam/Eve - and us - free will to do as we please. So while He certainly can reverse anything we might do, he chooses to allow us liberty. And because of that - and because He has not made us puppets, but willing, free agents - He is worthy to be praised as God.

I can look at a christian and say that he is behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with his religion, but when an atheist is a jerk what standard is he violating?
A christian who lies is a hypocrite.
Is an Atheist who lies doing anything more thatn behaving in a manner that I find inconveinent or inappropriate?
R. T. C.

"My master's degree tells me that I have heard both sides. : )"

Well, I think I understand why you don't see any arrogance in any of Paul's writings. ;-')

T&O, sometime when you are bored from waving your laurels about, count the number of times that Paul uses the word I in his writing. Even in the verses you quote, it's all about I, I , I, and I. And, a sentence where he calls for self-immolation doesn’t cancel out the sentences where he not-so-subtly calls for the eternal damnation of James’ messengers. Then, if you dare, please share the titles of some of the works you’ve studied or read that are critical of your religion. I’d be interested in the depth of your touted ministerial degree.

Now, as to the vision of a cross by a Roman emperor… Are you serious? Why in the world would you believe a ridiculous story like that? OMG!

There is/was many more versions of Gnosticism than just one. Surely you must know that. And Paul’s stories of meeting the un-dead Jesus all sound like hallucinatory, mystical meetings with a non-flesh ghostie thing. Have you ever wondered why Paul tells no stories about the real flesh and blood Jesus, except perhaps for the death meal? To Paul, Jesus is magic!

“I'm ok with opening up all questions to all of the investigative processes at our disposal. Atheists are not. They pretend to be reasoning in their approach, but that is a ruse. It's an emotional and psychological masturbation meant to make themselves feel better about themselves vis-a-vis believers of any stripe.”

You lost me on this one. Now I KNOW why you see Paul as humble. You have just attempted to lump an entire people group into a narrow channel of your own making. You have no idea what all atheists think, how they reason, ect. And, in case you forgot already, most of us here were believers, some for decades. Your self-righteousness is showing. Better cover it up.

”Let all claims be subject to the same inquiries. Atheists don't start from that position. They start from "there is nothing that is not natural." Hence, they are absolutists on only those points which serve them the best.”

Again with the “all” type statements. Fallacious. T&O, we all come into life as atheists. We don’t magically KNOW that a flying zombie is the savior of the world. We have to be taught that myth. If you were born in Iran, you’d be taught another myth, and undoubtedly -- based on your mindset -- you’d believe in Islam with all your heart and mind and think Christianity was a crock. We can’t logically begin from a position of “There are magical winged demons and angels floating around in the ecto-sphere even though there is absolutely no evidence for such creatures outside a leather bound book of magic spells on the table written by Bronze-Age men.” With that kind of thinking, T&O, there would be no way to determine reality. If I said an invisible tree was rooted in my front yard, one that can’t be sensed in any way, but that I know it is there… would you consider a conversation on the topic reasonable or rational? Wouldn’t you want some evidence for this magical tree?

“If God allows evil to exist, it is because He…” created the situation, scenario, and the subjects to guarantee evil would exist. That is, unless you are one of those who is a bit soft on omniscience. I mean, surely this great omnipotent guy could’ve come up with a better plan for his special little toys than setting in motion a system that HE KNEW would culminate with the vast majority of humanity writhing in eternal horrific agony in a lake of fire that HE CREATED to appease HIS WRATH, right? And don’t tell me I’m condemned because Adam (Atum in Egypt, btw – look it up) made the wrong choice. First of all, why in hell was that tree there? Why was Satan there? Why did this god act all surprised when what HE KNEW would happen, happened? Maybe because it’s a childish myth?

And this god you keep promoting. Did you say you had any evidence that the thing exists?

Finally, last shot at Paul:

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus’ words are nearly irrelevant in Christianity and Paul’s have come to have the preeminence in nearly everything? I mean, isn’t that odd that the magical bastard son of a god is milk and Paul is meat?

Is it just me (probably not), but shouldn't something really so self-evident as the Christian God, with the truth once and for all delivered to the saints and all that, actually be a little more evident? Look at all the cyber-space above this comment spent defending the God who is so obvious that no one has an excuse to not believe in him (paraphrasing Paul), yet still requires so much mental hopscotch and keyboard-pecking to beieve in and defend. Shouldn't be like that, should it? Who are you oh man to blah blah blah... Arguing with an old book is like arguing with a wall...

Another anonymous wrote: "I can look at a christian and say that he is behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with his religion, but when an atheist is a jerk what standard is he violating?
A christian who lies is a hypocrite.
Is an Atheist who lies doing anything more thatn behaving in a manner that I find inconveinent or inappropriate?
R. T. C."

An atheist who lies is a liar. An atheist who steals is a thief. An atheist who murders is a murderer.

I'm sorry, what is so hard about this? The point is, Christians SAY they are infused by a transmorgifying magic ghost. Yet, they don't look, act, or smell a bit different than the rest of humanity. Seems like someone playing host to a magical spirit being would stick out, ya know?

OnT: I'm ok with opening up all questions to all of the investigative processes at our disposal.

Yes, so long as these processes don't yield results that negate your religious convictions(read on)

OnT. Atheists are not. They pretend to be reasoning in their approach, but that is a ruse.

I pretend nothing; my days of pretending are over. ***My lack of belief---in your biblegod, and all other types of gods---is not a conviction....neither a religious one, nor a non-religious one.

Here's why: When I see empirical evidence for "Jesus"---as in the same type of evidence that the "500" and the Twelve" allegedly saw---then I must, and will, reconsider my position. Until then, I will NOT accept, on "faith", such revealed "knowledge" as objective truth. Moreover, the "faith" of these alleged "eyewitnesses" was unscathed. So that said, I would rather no one hand me the Jesus just wants you to have faith soundbite. You'll need something better---similar to how a Muslim would need something better than "faith"..i.e.."hope", if he or she were to convince you that Muhammad is Almighty God. 'Get it?

OnT: It's an emotional and psychological masturbation meant to make themselves feel better about themselves vis-a-vis believers of any stripe.

Feel better about myself? To the contrary---the objective search for truth is to accept the results no matter how it makes me "feel". It is generally the Theist who appeals to emotion(s). Additionally, your argument that Atheists want to feel superior to believers is made of straw. Fluff. Again, you'll need something better.

OnT: Let all claims be subject to the same inquiries. Atheists don't start from that position. They start from "there is nothing that is not natural".

Yep. However, again, this is not a convicition. Once I see something defy the laws of nature/physics, then I will reconsider the position from where I started. To review, see here*** above.

Let's look, now, at where the Christian "starts". They start by positing that the supernatural does exist. They generally accept this "fact" by three means: 1) revelation, 2) Faith("hope"), and 3) the anecdotal evidence of other believers.

Yet, interestingly, they casually dismiss these three types of "evidence" when it comes to any and all religions that oppose theirs. Got bias?

OnT attempts: If God allows evil to exist, it is because...[insert any conceivable reason]

"IF God allows" it...then God allows it. Period. The "because", is irrelevant. Please don't insult my intellignece by suggesting that the Ruler of the Universe would do something that He or She doesn't really want to do; that a lesser being has "God" in a "bind".

OnT continues: He certainly can reverse anything we might do, he chooses to allow us liberty. And because of that - and because He has not made us puppets, but willing, free agents - He is worthy to be praised as God.

If "He" can do, or undo "anything", then "He" is most certainly omnipotent. Yet, "He" apparently couldn't create a being that didn't have the innate propensity to displease "Him", could "He"? Furthermore, if "He" is "free" to change something, whether "He" does, or doesn't...the future isn't "God's plan", or else nothing would need to be changed. If nothing needs to be changed, and everything is "God's plan", then you are worshipping someone's elses "puppet". Perhaps Jesus is Allah's puppet?

boomSLANG wrote, immediately above:
"...If "He" can do, or undo "anything", then "He" is most certainly omnipotent. Yet, "He" apparently couldn't create a being that didn't have the innate propensity to displease "Him", could "He"? ..."

Maybe, far from humans needing the god character to redeem them, the god character needs the humans to redeem him/her/it. After all, presumably the god character also has free will (and some serious mood-swing disorders), so she can't be all that nuts about herself. Maybe the god character will gain deliverance once humans get a handle on their N.H.P. (Natural Human Perversity on this occasion, not No Horizontal Paper).

Maybe I'll take this up with some "ordained" person, who really is no different from any other person, some day when I have not one single fucking thing else to do.

To any Christian who tells me to look at God....

Well, show me a god and I'll check it out, ok? As I see it now, the only way to see any god, if you even want to call it that at all (I don't), is in People. If there is any divinity in the world at all it's in us imperfect people.

Thanks, that's all I have to say about that.

>> "My master's degree tells me that I have heard both sides. : )"

Well, I think I understand why you don't see any arrogance in any of Paul's writings. ;-') <<

Hey, you were the one who said "When you are only hearing one side of a position, that side seems perfectly correct. I've heard both" making the lame attempt to suggest that YOU have heard both sides but I have not. Silliness. Show me your degree and I'll decide if you are up to the educational challenge! : ) I don't think you are.

>> T&O, sometime when you are bored from waving your laurels about, count the number of times that Paul uses the word I in his writing. <<

Yes, the number of "I"s in a paragraph is so indicative of pride! What sophistry! How 'bout a person arguing a position that he olds might say I this and I that. I guess he should have employed the modern "one would posit..."

>> Now, as to the vision of a cross by a Roman emperor… Are you serious? Why in the world would you believe a ridiculous story like that? OMG! <<

Provide some evidence that this did not occur. If you don't believe it, your only reason is an a priori bias against the possibility.

>> There is/was many more versions of Gnosticism than just one. Surely you must know that. And Paul’s stories of meeting the un-dead Jesus all sound like hallucinatory, mystical meetings with a non-flesh ghostie thing. Have you ever wondered why Paul tells no stories about the real flesh and blood Jesus, except perhaps for the death meal? To Paul, Jesus is magic! <<

You would do well to understand Paul's use of sarks and pneuma. It is clear from Paul's writings that if he understood Jesus only to have been a spirit person and never a flesh person he had plenty of opportunity to explicate this, which he does not. He is fully aware of the humanity of Christ and does not discount it in anyway anywhere.

>> You lost me on this one. Now I KNOW why you see Paul as humble. You have just attempted to lump an entire people group into a narrow channel of your own making. You have no idea what all atheists think, how they reason, ect. And, in case you forgot already, most of us here were believers, some for decades. Your self-righteousness is showing. Better cover it up.<<

Indeed, atheists reject out of hand the supernatural. The discussion from which this arose centered on the apparent silliness of attempting to investigate "every single claim, no matter how ridiculous." So what's wrong with subjecting each and every claim? Except for the time such a thing would take, there is no other reason not to - other than that you are an atheist and you already claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. And, yes, I do know what atheists think and believe. Their statements echo each others across the web and in personal conversations as if they were reading from a prepared script. Listen to yourselves sometimes. There is nothing self-righteous about any of that. It is simple observation.

>> With that kind of thinking, T&O, there would be no way to determine reality. If I said an invisible tree was rooted in my front yard, one that can’t be sensed in any way, but that I know it is there… would you consider a conversation on the topic reasonable or rational? Wouldn’t you want some evidence for this magical tree? <<

I would listen to your claims and ask why you believed it to be true. If you could provide zero evidence, I would simply discount it. However, all claims of Christ are subject to certain rules of evidence along certain lines. We cannot duplicate any of them in a laboratory, but that is not how we validate historical claims anyway.
You and your friends have rejected out of hand any and all possibilities of the supernatural.

Go on and deny that. I'm listening.................................................................................

>> “If God allows evil to exist, it is because He…” created the situation, scenario, and the subjects to guarantee evil would exist. <<

Guarantee? Creating the situations, scenarios and subjects guarantees nothing. It only gives them the option of choosing their path, which He did.

>> I mean, surely this great omnipotent guy could’ve come up with a better plan for his special little toys than setting in motion a system that HE KNEW would culminate with the vast majority of humanity writhing in eternal horrific agony in a lake of fire that HE CREATED to appease HIS WRATH, right? <<

He certainly could have. It would have required the over-riding of your free will. Because He gave free will to all, some would end up choosing the hell that awaits them while others would choose God.
>> And don’t tell me I’m condemned because Adam (Atum in Egypt, btw – look it up) made the wrong choice. <<

You're not. You are condemned for not believing in Christ Jesus.

>> First of all, why in hell was that tree there? Why was Satan there? Why did this god act all surprised when what HE KNEW would happen, happened? Maybe because it’s a childish myth? <<

Good philosophical questions that require a lot of typing to cover! Why the elements were present I can't say. But they had the free will to obey God and they chose not to. I don't recall God acting surprised.

>> And this god you keep promoting. Did you say you had any evidence that the thing exists? <<

Yes, a man was born of a virgin in time and space, lived and had his words and deeds recorded claiming to be acting on behalf of God performing supernatural miracles, was killed and seen post-resurrection by those who recorded the events. The only real problem for you in all of that is your a priori bias against the supernatural. That's not a barrier I have to overcome. I don't have such biases.

>> Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus’ words are nearly irrelevant in Christianity and Paul’s have come to have the preeminence in nearly everything? I mean, isn’t that odd that the magical bastard son of a god is milk and Paul is meat? <<

Perhaps you attended the wrong church. I've never seen Jesus' words put in second place. Paul develops a lot of good theology, but the essentials of Jesus' birth, death and resurrection are all in the Gospels. Paul mainly develops what that all means for humanity and deals with the nature of the Church.

>> Is it just me (probably not), but shouldn't something really so self-evident as the Christian God, with the truth once and for all delivered to the saints and all that, actually be a little more evident? <<

Seems like it requires faith to me. Seeing God in His creation is also self-evident. You may be blind to all of that, but that is you.

>> So would you admit that you have a priori bias against allah? How about Ra? How about all the other gods that man could believe in? <<

I have seen no evidence to suggest that these gods are worthy of worship. Allah, in fact, is considered by Islam to be the same God as Yahweh. As far as that is concerned, then, I believe Allah exists, but they are calling Him by the wrong name. Ra - and other gods - have yet to present the same level of evidence as Yahweh has through His Son most especially.

>> One can look at supernatural claims in such a way as well. So what if someone a long time ago claimed to see superfantastical visions and attributed them to a deity. Could just be their brian gettin' out O' whack. If I don't have a similar experience and you cannot show evidence of such experiences then that leaves your claim of the supernatural realm on equal ground as anyone elses' claim. No different than tales of fairy magic and leprichans and invisible pink unicorns. <<
If the discussion centers on how to verify what supernatural claims are more worthy of acceptance than others, then I think it would be those that have a physical component that can be examined - such as one who was once dead, then was alive, then ascended in the presence of others. That's easier to accept than the presence of a spiritual tree in a front yard.

>> also:"I just choose to disassociate with those who are not friendly to me."

I did the same thing when jebus didn't help me when I needed him to. It wasn't other christians that did it to me. <<

So Jesus didn't help you. He answered "no" to your prayer? He allowed something to happen that you can't forgive Him for? Did you ever think that maybe Christianity is about something more than what Jesus does for you?
Ask not what your God can do for you; ask what you can do for your God. (borrowed) How does that sound?

>> T&O:"Good cannot coexist with evil and evil requires the greatest of consequences."

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. <<

Homework: Please provide the semantic range for the Hebrew word used to translate "evil" and tell me what you learn from this.

I'm still waiting for the homework assignment on Paul's alleged "sexist" comments.

>> OnT: I'm ok with opening up all questions to all of the investigative processes at our disposal.

Yes, so long as these processes don't yield results that negate your religious convictions(read on) <<

I think you are speaking of yourself here. You are the one whose religious non-convictions are not permitted to be altered by the presence of supernatural reality. That is your big stumbling block.

>> Here's why: When I see empirical evidence for "Jesus"---as in the same type of evidence that the "500" and the Twelve" allegedly saw---then I must, and will, reconsider my position. Until then, I will NOT accept, on "faith", such revealed "knowledge" as objective truth. Moreover, the "faith" of these alleged "eyewitnesses" was unscathed. So that said, I would rather no one hand me the Jesus just wants you to have faith soundbite. You'll need something better---similar to how a Muslim would need something better than "faith"..i.e.."hope", if he or she were to convince you that Muhammad is Almighty God. 'Get it? <<

There is PLENTY of empirical evidence for Jesus. Just not the kind you are willing to accept. In essence, you are not being honest when you say that you will reconsider your position. All the evidence you will ever have is already available of the type of which you are already aware.

>> OnT: Let all claims be subject to the same inquiries. Atheists don't start from that position. They start from "there is nothing that is not natural".

Yep. However, again, this is not a convicition. Once I see something defy the laws of nature/physics, then I will reconsider the position from where I started. To review, see here*** above. <<

Start reading. There are contemporary reports of healings and deliverances and so many other documented cases - in physicians' medical charts and the rest. You just refuse to accept that any of this is actually happening because it didn't happen in front of your eyes. Pardon me if I doubt whether or not even that which occurred right in front of you would alter your position.

>> Let's look, now, at where the Christian "starts". They start by positing that the supernatural does exist. They generally accept this "fact" by three means: 1) revelation, 2) Faith("hope"), and 3) the anecdotal evidence of other believers. <<

Also the anecdotal evidence of non-believers of other stripes and non-believers as well. How many write of their experiences as non-believers that made them believers? Or is that not acceptable because by then their report is coming from a believer? The supernatural exists wheth