judeo-christian mythology
sent in by Benjamin Thomas
I was raised in a Christian family, went to a christian school, and was well educated in biblical tenet. I just have some questions that were never answered in church or school. If there are so many beliefs in the world, why is Christianity the only one you believe is true? A good number of them have been around longer than it has been.
Another question I have is; If God has already set our plan in motion, doesn't that eliminate free-will, if what we do is his divine plan anyways? If the plan is already in motion, why do we pray to God, considering that he already has decided the outcome, regardless of the prayer? It just seems kind of silly from a perspective that isn't blinded by the light.
Our God isn't the author of confusion, but what about the tower of babel? The bible is also very repetitive and cryptic at times, and most christians haven't taken the time to read the whole thing. I finally got around to reading the whole thing after my faith was extinguished, and the funny thing was, I was never really encouraged to read it front to back when I was in christian school or church. Anyways, I wanted to let some true believers know that I have full respect for their beliefs, but believing goes beyond the realm of science, into superstition, and things we can't percieve or feel are to be revered.
What it boils down to is fear of dying, and your faith allows feelings and emotions one carries in this lifetime transcention to the next dimension. I can't help but question a belief system that encourages it's followers to ignore everything that defies their stance, and not to question what they believe. Humans are born to question, and it helps make us improve throughout time.
When we are told to not question, it defies human nature, and slows our progress. If a believer has a true air of confidence in his beliefs, then probing into areas that defy his faith should bolster that position, and solidify his foundation in christianity. If christianity is infallible, scrutiny should be quite easily discarded. Since one of the fundamental beliefs of a christian is to not pay attention to anything of the "world", that is, not christian-based, it raises my concern that if the system was the only truth, it should have no concern as to what opposes it. What I mean here is that if Jesus knew that he was the son of God, and belief in him was the key to everlasting life, he should've welcomed criticism due to the fact that the belief system is irrerrant.
Instead, the bible clearly states that NO one should be allowed to live that believes in something different then what it says. Why are Christians so accepting of the miracles of the bible, yet anything outside of the bible that's even remotely supernatural is ruled mythical. The ancient world is jammed full of mythical storytelling, and the bible is the only one that is inerrant? It's all kind of strange when you look at the big picture.
If you believe in angels and demons, why are hydras and cyclops considered so absurd? It's like you stretch your imagination immensely to fit the biblical view, but restrain it in everything else you believe. The christian belief system just doesn't make any sense. I hope someone has the time to read this, as it took some time to write.
All the best,
Benjamin Thomas
State: ohio
Country: usa
Became a Christian: very young
Ceased being a Christian: about 20
Labels before: charimatic, non denominational
Labels now: anti-stupid
Why I joined: fear, and family pressure
Why I left: read the post, lazy
Email Address: milligb at nationwide dot com
I was raised in a Christian family, went to a christian school, and was well educated in biblical tenet. I just have some questions that were never answered in church or school. If there are so many beliefs in the world, why is Christianity the only one you believe is true? A good number of them have been around longer than it has been.
Another question I have is; If God has already set our plan in motion, doesn't that eliminate free-will, if what we do is his divine plan anyways? If the plan is already in motion, why do we pray to God, considering that he already has decided the outcome, regardless of the prayer? It just seems kind of silly from a perspective that isn't blinded by the light.
Our God isn't the author of confusion, but what about the tower of babel? The bible is also very repetitive and cryptic at times, and most christians haven't taken the time to read the whole thing. I finally got around to reading the whole thing after my faith was extinguished, and the funny thing was, I was never really encouraged to read it front to back when I was in christian school or church. Anyways, I wanted to let some true believers know that I have full respect for their beliefs, but believing goes beyond the realm of science, into superstition, and things we can't percieve or feel are to be revered.
What it boils down to is fear of dying, and your faith allows feelings and emotions one carries in this lifetime transcention to the next dimension. I can't help but question a belief system that encourages it's followers to ignore everything that defies their stance, and not to question what they believe. Humans are born to question, and it helps make us improve throughout time.
When we are told to not question, it defies human nature, and slows our progress. If a believer has a true air of confidence in his beliefs, then probing into areas that defy his faith should bolster that position, and solidify his foundation in christianity. If christianity is infallible, scrutiny should be quite easily discarded. Since one of the fundamental beliefs of a christian is to not pay attention to anything of the "world", that is, not christian-based, it raises my concern that if the system was the only truth, it should have no concern as to what opposes it. What I mean here is that if Jesus knew that he was the son of God, and belief in him was the key to everlasting life, he should've welcomed criticism due to the fact that the belief system is irrerrant.
Instead, the bible clearly states that NO one should be allowed to live that believes in something different then what it says. Why are Christians so accepting of the miracles of the bible, yet anything outside of the bible that's even remotely supernatural is ruled mythical. The ancient world is jammed full of mythical storytelling, and the bible is the only one that is inerrant? It's all kind of strange when you look at the big picture.
If you believe in angels and demons, why are hydras and cyclops considered so absurd? It's like you stretch your imagination immensely to fit the biblical view, but restrain it in everything else you believe. The christian belief system just doesn't make any sense. I hope someone has the time to read this, as it took some time to write.
All the best,
Benjamin Thomas
State: ohio
Country: usa
Became a Christian: very young
Ceased being a Christian: about 20
Labels before: charimatic, non denominational
Labels now: anti-stupid
Why I joined: fear, and family pressure
Why I left: read the post, lazy
Email Address: milligb at nationwide dot com
Comments
Who the hell is "Brandon"?
Fundonymous teenager: ...you said God isnt a person of confusion..he isnt he did that at the tower of babel because people wanted to be like God in the sinful way.
"Be like God in the sinful way" ????? So then, you admit that your biblegod is capable of "sin"? Now of course, anyone who is literate can plainly see that biblegod breaks his own rules all throughout the bible, but yet, a fundy' admitting this?...wow, that's noteworthy. So then your biblegod is clearly not "perfect" if he is capable of "sin". Agreed.
Fundonymous teenager: ..and how do you know that many christian[s] havent read the bible have you asked every single one of them?
We don't need to ask every single one of them; the claptrap that we hear from Christians on this site every day, is a pretty good indicator that many have not picked up a bible.
Christian: Another thing is that we do have a free will we do whatever we want and God doesnt stop us because he wants to see what we do in certain situations he doesnt want us to be robots.
First and foremost, "God doesn't stop us" because "God" doesn't exist. You can not affirm a positive by defining it in the negative....i.e. "God doesn't do" this, or that. For instance, in the statement, "Lucky the Leprechaun DOESN'T stop people from eating breakfast cereals other then Frosted Lucky Charms!!!", it doesn't do a damn thing to substatiate the existence of such a being, does it? No, I could sit here all day long and tell you all the things that Lucky the Leprechaun DOES NOT do. Duh?
Fundonymous teenager: And people who are real christians arent afraid of dying so dont say what you dont know because if [you're] a christian you already know where [you're] going and thats heaven so its not [because] of dying its because we are convicted by God.
Could you clear something up for me? Out of the 33 THOUSAND some-odd sects/denominations of Christianity, which are the "real Christians"? I'd really like it settled once and for all. Then humor me, and tell me what the difference is between a pizza lover, and a real pizza lover(?) Preferably, have it make sense.
Fundy-teen: And the bible is repetetive because its important and we ought to know those things.
It's repetitive because brainwashing requires repetition.
Fundy-teen: And if you want to question something then read the bible.
Um, it's reading the bible that caused the majority of us to deconvert. Have you seen any talking snakes, lately? Do you hate your parents? The list of absurdities is endless, right down to the alleged Creator of the Universe having a tizzy because a fig tree wouldn't produce figs in the off-season. lol! Priceless!
Fundy-teen: So next time you post something think about it first because you say you were an "exchristian" but if you were a christian in the first place you wouldnt even be questioning
Right--there's a really good reason that you are not to question the bible.
Fundy-teen: So may God have mercy on you and this website.
May reason find you and deliver you from your ignorance.
Your long comment is NOT visible in this "judeo-christian mythology" post, until one hits the "Post a Comment" button.
I've seen this problem before, but it normally clears up in under an hour, but your post has been here for far longer now.
Just thought you should know
ATF
I can't speak for the US, of course, but in Britain most non-evangelical Christians admit that a fair proportion of biblical text is myth. The point is that myth is a way of expressing truth which is almost beyond our power to express in normal language.
Your posting confirms my view that Christians today need to be more honest regarding what is literal truth or literal history, and what is myth in the above sense.
Your experiance may have been of believers who refuse frank discussion, but I am sure Jesus would have been glad to meet you half-way in frank and honest exchange. If you look around, I am sure you will find such people. I wish you well.
Being a Christian is having faith in Jesus of Nazareth and following his teaching. Make no mistake, he was a historical person, and he is mentioned by contemporary historians. Whatever happened at the resurrection, it must have been of monumental proportions to have the effect it did. To find out what his followers thought about him, read Mark's Gospel. For his teachings just read the story of the Lost Son in Luke 15:11 (When we realize we have messed up our lives, we can go back to God and find acceptance and love). On how he wants us to live, read the story of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31. (Christianity isn't a matter of believing the right things about the Bible or "knowing" Jesus, but about wanting the best for other people and showing love.)
I am really happy to have this opportunity of reading about what young people think of the Christian faith, but I am very sad to find so much misunderstanding.
1 - This is a very worthwhile website, but it isn't used very often. I only found it by doing a Google search under "Christian mythology", but how many people are likely to take this route? Do you think you should re-name it, making it easier to find?
2 - Sorry about the typing errors in my previous comments!
Nearly 3,000 people a day come to this website. This website has hundreds and hundreds of pages. The article you just posted on is just one of those pages.
There are hundreds of thousands of Christians (perhaps millions) that are committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe in actual reality of Noah's ark, the Tower of Babble, and every other ridiculous myth. I think you may live in a bit of a bubble.
Which ones? Please include what they wrote about this jesus person and when they wrote it.
"Whatever happened at the resurrection, it must have been of monumental proportions to have the effect it did."
Name a contemporary historian that wrote about this as well please. Also include what they wrote about it.
Thanks.
Oh really? Who did you have in mind? (By the way, I can list many writers/historians from the period and the region who failed to make any mention of Jesus.)
Our first President, and one of our founding fathers, George Washington, is a "historical person", and is also "mentioned by contemporary historians". However, the stories that he chopped his father's cherry tree down with a little hatchet, and chucked a silver dollar across the Potomac river are embelishements; they are cute little fables that were manufactured, and spread, in attempt to embroider Washington's physical strength. Why?..because Washington's proponents had an agenda--they wanted him to appear more powerful than he actually was.
Now, is it a stretch of the imagination to think that the bible's redactors had a similar agenda? Hmmm...I don't think so.
(And BTW, there is myriad literature written by Washington's own family members, and of course, that would indicate written in his own lifetime.)
David(UK): Whatever happened at the resurrection, it must have been of monumental proportions to have the effect it did.
Now wait just a minute. Previously, the following statement was made:
The Bible is a library, containing poetry, folk tales, tribal law, biography and history. Very few Christians today believe in the Tower of Babel, the Flood or the Fall of Man as being literally true. These texts are the attempts of ancient people to make sense of the world and human nature.
How can we be sure that the alleged "resurrection" is "literally true", and not simply more embroidering, in an attempt to mislead? In other words, it's certainly no less of a fantastic story than building a tower into the clouds, or a talking snake offering a bite of fruit to a man who was made out of dirt. Please..... see "compartmentalization".
I now realize that I was looking at only a small part of the website, and it's daunting to realize that so many people may be scrutinizing my remarks. Anyway, I am joining you in a spirit of friendship and respect. I simply enjoy sensible discussion.
I appreciate that the Fundamemtalist problem is greater over there than it is here, but these groups are becoming stronger, especially in our Afro-Caribbean communities. At the same time, I believe that there is a large silent majority of Anglo-Saxon Christians who realize that a more informed approach to the Bible is necessary, but are waiting (in vain)for leadership.
I wonder how many of you are 'Ex-Christians' because you believe that all Christians are Fundamentalists and teach that the Bible has to be swallowed whole or not at all.
Historical records: Clearly, it was not until after his death that Jesus was regarded as remarkable by any but his closest friends and immediate audiences, and given the state of communications in those days, it is not surprising that contemporary writers paid little attention until the Christians became a significant faith group. Oral accounts were sufficient until that generation was approaching death, which is why the Gospels were not compiled until after 60AD. Certainly, Paul and Luke (in Acts)were promoting their faith, but they were intent on communicating the truth as they saw it.
Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan (111AD)states: [Christians he has met in NW Asia Minor] 'meet on a certain fixed day before sunrise and sing to Christ as God, and they bind themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft...' (Letter 10.96)
Tacitus refers (115-7 AD)to the Christians who were blamed by the Emperor Nero for the fire of 64 AD. 'They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberias.' (Annals 15.44.2)
Josephus refers to the stoning of 'the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ - James by name.'
For detail and discussion, see Graham Stanton: The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford 1989), which I believe is available in the US.
It all comes down to faith in the end, of course, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a faith which incorparates reason. It seems to me that serious historians take it for granted that Jesus existed, which is why Christianity's opponents have concentrated their attack on on the possibility that the bare facts of his life and teaching were supplemented in the light of his followers' subsequent understanding of his cosmic significance. It is more than likely that some traditions which later crept into Christian documents are lacking in authenticity because they bear witness to the veneration felt towards a historical figure of absolute supremacy. To me it seems illogical that the Early Church sprang into life and that its members frequently risked their lives to preach a Risen Lord if it was all based on their having carried away his body.
I think our friend who refers to George Washington has misunderstood me. In making the claim that Jesus was a historical figure - i.e. he actually lived, as you and I are living - I am certainly not saying that we have to regard everything that the Gospels say about him as being factually accurate. They also contain theological interpretation and meditation on his life as a whole, as well as - let's admit it - elements of myth which are there to explain his cosmic signicance. My contention is that at the heart of the apple there is a solid core of historicity and seeds of genuine, life-giving quality.
Okay, in retrospect, maybe I jumped the gun with the Washington analogy, and in regards to the point that "Jesus" was a man who "actually lived", etc...I should've just asked, "so what?" In other words, how does that very basic fact coincide with "cosmic" significance?
Take it from there, if you feel inclinded.
None. That would be a ridiculous belief.
David: "it was not until after his death that Jesus was regarded as remarkable by any but his closest friends and immediate audiences,..."
What about the multitudes he fed? What about the cheering crowds in Jerusalem? What about Herod's slaughter of the innocents? What about raising Lazarus, and performing many healings? You are claiming that very few took note of these things? Or are you admitting that these were all later embellishments?
David: "...and given the state of communications in those days, it is not surprising that contemporary writers paid little attention until the Christians became a significant faith group."
There were numerous would-be messiahs and magicians during that time who warranted mention by historians of the period. Why was Jesus systematically ignored?
David: "Oral accounts were sufficient until that generation was approaching death, which is why the Gospels were not compiled until after 60AD."
If that is so, then one would expect a similar absence of contemporary written accounts of other want-to-be messiah's. Yet we have Philo, who was alive at the time of the supposed crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, who mentions numerous "magicians" and cult leaders of the period, but never mentions Jesus.
Both Seneca and Epictetus who lived from the mid to late first century wrote extensively on ethics and various philosophies and personalities of the period (including stoicism and cynicism, which bore extensive similarities to Christianity). Yet neither one mentions Jesus or Christianity. The Roman satirist Martial (late 1st century) lampooned a wide variety of beliefs that existed around Rome, but mentioned neither Jesus nor Christians (which would seemingly have been an easy and irresistible target for him).
David: "Certainly, Paul and Luke (in Acts)were promoting their faith, but they were intent on communicating the truth as they saw it."
How do you know Luke wrote Acts?
As for Pliny and Tacitus, they report what was circulating among Christians during the second century; they provide no independent confirmation. And, as I'm sure you know, the entries of Josephus are highly suspect, as nobody cites them until the 4th century!
David: "It all comes down to faith in the end, of course, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a faith which incorparates reason."
Yes, “faith” always seems to be a large component. As for the evidence you speak of, I disagree with you completely; I think it's so scant that there is barely anything to consider.
David: "It seems to me that serious historians take it for granted that Jesus existed, which is why Christianity's opponents have concentrated their attack..."
Yes, many historians and theologians certainly do take Jesus' life for granted. However, it's clear that many of them have never seriously questioned those beliefs, and therefore do not realize how tenuous the case is. Of course, there are also numerous scholars, beginning in the mid 19th century, who have studied the evidence extensively, and concluded that Jesus was likely a mythical character, just like Hercules. Are you familiar with any of those arguments?
David: "To me it seems illogical that the Early Church sprang into life and that its members frequently risked their lives to preach a Risen Lord if it was all based on their having carried away his body."
I think that scenario is highly unlikely also. I think it far more plausible that there was no body to begin with--that “Jesus” as a human was at some point conflated with “Christ” as Logos, and retroactively given a “life” and a history, largely through midrashic invention. That scenario was not only played out countless times with other legends, but it fits the facts surrounding Jesus remarkably well.
David: "In making the claim that Jesus was a historical figure... I am certainly not saying that we have to regard everything that the Gospels say about him as being factually accurate....My contention is that at the heart of the apple there is a solid core of historicity..."
I think everyone understands that you are not advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible. The question is why you believe any of it is factual. You have offered nothing substantive in support of that contention. But then, neither has anyone else.
By the way, I assume you are retracting your earlier comment: "...he [Jesus] is mentioned by contemporary historians." Is that correct?
Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan (111AD)states: [Christians he has met in NW Asia Minor] 'meet on a certain fixed day before sunrise and sing to Christ as God, and they bind themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft...' (Letter 10.96)
Tacitus refers (115-7 AD)to the Christians who were blamed by the Emperor Nero for the fire of 64 AD. 'They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberias.' (Annals 15.44.2)
--------
David,
I would like to add more information to what Prof. Jim has already cited to you on this historical proof issue.
At first I was going to sit here and type out entire paragraphs from the new book I just finished (Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ: Acharya S), but that is just too time consuming, so I found similar information on the web instead for you to ponder about.
So let's look at what you believe is solid evidence and see how it stands up to scrutiny.
Source: http://www.luigicascioli.it/prove3_eng.php
Note: Bold emphasis added by me.
Pliny
During the period in which he was governor of Bithinia (112-113), Pliny the Young wrote to Emperor Traianus to ask him instructions about how to behave towards a community that made particular propitiatory rites at dawn in honour of Khristo that they considered a divinity (Khristo quasi deo) and that gathered together to eat innocent meals.
It is sufficient to read the following passage by Joseph Flavius referring to the essenians to realize at once that those whom Pliny the Young refers to were not at all christians as the Church wants to maintain.
“Their pity towards the divinity has a particular form: before the sunrise they recite prayers to him almost imploring him to rise
::::
“Christ quasi deo” of whom speaks Pliny the Young is the religious Messiah that the essenian communities, separated from the warrior revolutionary wing, had begun to wait for after the defeat of the Jewish army in 70.
The meals in common reported in the Letters of Paul of Tarsus (Agapi) in all similar to the rites in Joseph Flavius and confirmed by the documents found in Qumran (“Roll of the Rules”) are also a further evidence that those whom the Church wants to be considered the first christians are nothing but components of essenian communities.
Tacitus
Tacitus is the Latin author that according to the Church offers the greatest evidence to prove the existence of the christians in Rome in the years 50-60, that is to say under Nero. I refer here to that Tacitus contained in the XV book of the “Annals” in which it is written that Nero, after having accused the christians of the fire of Rome, persecuted them and in these persecutions also Peter and Paul died.
These news regarding the fire of Rome and the death of Peter and Paul are ignored by all the historians of time and by those to follow, included the christian ones like Bishop Clemente, Eusebius from Cesarea , and the same Augustine who does not mention them in his book “De Civitate Dei”, dedicated in part to narrate the calamities suffered before the sack of Alaricus (410), came out only in the XV century by a certain Poggio Brandolini, papal secretary, who said having received them in 1429 inside a manuscript of the XI century, by an anonymous monk who had come to Rome on a pilgrimage. This papal secretary already known for various forgeries if he found this document it was not much to demonstrate the existence of the christians in Nero's times, which in the XIV century was taken for granted , but to solve the disputes that came from the various christian currents and from the same “Council of Cardenals” against the christian supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Read the councils of Pisa (1409) and of Constance (1414).
::
That this document presented by Poggio Brandolino in 1429 is a forgery is demonstrated, in addition to the fact that Simon Peter could not be martyred under Nero because he was executed together with his brother James in 46 in Jerusalem under Claudius also because Tacitus could never have written of a fire of Rome, that according to what has been historically demonstrated, never happened.
::
Joseph Flavius
Voltaire writes in his philosophical dictionary (chap. V): “If Joseph Flavius had seen the Christ, then he would have been a christian”.
2) The passage is placed between two facts that rhetorically exclude it.
It is sufficient to examine the two events reported in their original position to realise that the passage regarding Jesus is an evident intervention that interrupts the relationship that Flavius wanted to give to two disgraces that happen at the same time.
::
It is sufficient to put between the two sentences that the author linked as the rings of a chain the sentence regarding Jesus that begins “At the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man” to realise how it is a gross interpolation between two facts that rhetorically exclude it.
This passage, previously unknown, appeared for the first time ion “Jewish Antiquities” in the IV century by Eusebius of Caesarea (the forger) , was later reconfirmed in the edition of the VI century, that is about two centuries later during which the book of Joseph Flavius was substituted by another “Jewish Antiquities” that appeared to be written by Egesippus, who was in reality Ambrose from Milan who had used this pseudonym.
::
Now David,
If you really are seeking the historical truth of your xtian beliefs, then it would benefit you to read not only the website I referenced, but to get ahold of the book I also mentioned.
If on the other hand, you are just merely seeking evidence to prove your Jesus was a reality, then I'm sure you'll push any counter evidence away, as most xtians are in the sad habit of doing so EASILY.
Trust me, we know the truth hurts, especially when you have put so much emotional energy into believing a fallacy.
Alas, so many do not have the courage to face the facts and will choose to stay blinded, as it gives them such comfort to believe in something greater than reality.
ATF (Who knows if he was still a xtian, he'd be wondering why we have so LITTLE history about such a popular heroic figure, who is called "jesus")
Even if you deny the existence of Jesus, you cannot destroy the Love which lies at the heart of his message. This is the deepest meaning of the Resurrection.
Farewell.
Bye now.
Believe in me or burn forever, is at the heart of christs message, according to some. I do not consider that love. Nor should any thinking person that has a ounce of real compassion.
Are we to assume that you alone, David, know what is to be believed as literal truth about what christ supposedly said? Even when others reading the same text have come to other conclusions about the message of christ?
If you wish to read more into "the message" found in the NT, so be it. But please refrain from inviting us to ignore the facts along with you.
Goodbye.
Oh brother. First, David, who is "denying" the existence of Jesus? I, for one, do not know whether such a man ever existed, however I find it intriguing to sift through the evidence and try to figure it out. I think it doubtful that he existed, but I'm open to new evidence. I take it you no longer wish to discuss that angle.
David: "This is the deepest meaning of the Resurrection."
As a symbol, or a metaphor, I think the story of the crucifixion of Jesus probably arose through a "scapegoat" myth--the sanctification of violence through religion. There are numerous examples of this throughout history (Maccoby, Grirard, and Price explore this possibility at length). Resurrection stories are also plentiful; in fact, empty tombs and bodies being taken up to heaven were common elements of "romance novels" two thousand years ago.
So, I disagree. I think equating "resurrection" with "love" is overly simplistic. What we have is a multi-layer mythology whose elements probably draw from many different traditions. There are many meanings, and they have changed over time.
I am commenting on the original post sent by benjamin. I grew up in a church (my grandmother is the pastor) I was brought up to believe in Christ, God, Holy Spirit three in one, the almighty. When I was about 20 I began questioning why I believed this and why I believed that and everything. I found myself searching the word for answers only to be confused and frustrated. It took many years (as I am almost 30) for me to truly believe and understand why I worshiped and believed the way I do. I do not get your statement "The bible says that everyone who doesn't believe they should die" God doesn't want anyone to "die" as you put it, that is why he sent his son to die on the cross, to give us a chance at salvation. It is not by our acts or what we can offer anyone else, but God. It is by his grace we can be saved. God sees everyone inner heart, that is where he makes his judgement calls. If someones time is spent sifting through topic after topic and their intent is to deliberatly hurt someone, just because they don't want to deal with their own issues, I think it would probably be bad. Is is so bad that people want to believe in a higher power? A catch all for the craper this world presents us with sometimes? People who believe to receive good you have to give it? No, infact if the whole world just acted nice towards everyone the world would be a better place. Don't get me wrong, people misuse the name of Jesus everyday, for their personal financial and reputational gain, I believe God will deal with them differently some day. But bottom line, I do think that God is a God of patience, love, humbleness and peace. I don't think that God has everything set in motion for everyone. I think you have to want him to, he won't come into your home, unless you ask him to. God doesn't grab us by the hairs of our heads and make us follow him, in fact he always said "He Who Hath an Ear let him hear". Given the type of site this is, I am sure not many want to hear what they have already heard, lets face it to be on an ex-christian site, you would have had to have been a christian first, and therefore probably endures some hidious sermons, believe me I have been through my fair share of them. My grandmother used to tell me she didn't want me to split Hell wide open. I laugh now, but it used to make me angry, bottom line is I had to decide if I served God because my grandmother wanted me to, or if I was going to serve God because it was what I wanted to do. Lets just say, God won, my grandmother didn't, I tend to make her mad with my "racey" comments or so she calls them when I tell the church they don't have to listen to her or anyone else, they should listen to the voice of God. (I guess she used to believe that she was the voice of God speaking through her, or the Gospel according to Lois as I used to call it). Anyways, I have had my moments of unbelief, but I have endured to many travisties and I have seen to many wonderful things to not believe that God is with me and for me. Do I believe he ordains pathways for people, yes but we have to ask him to lead us, why would he even contemplate helping someone in a decision, if they don't ask for his help, that would just waste his time, he would be standing there sending the message, but to no one that was listening. So it is pretty safe to say that your "free will" is safe, in face my free will is safe. God doesn't interfere with my life, I invite Him in, I want his help, I am stronger and more confident knowing he is with me. Psalms 55:16 "As for me I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me". and 56:11 " In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me." I guess the question I asked myself just before I was about to walk away for my church was "do I want to live my life for God and find out one day he isn't real, or do I want to live my life as if he isn't and find out one day he is. You probably no how I answered, not out of fear of being wrong, but out of reverance for God, I could not turn my back on what I new was right, for me. God, Jesus, Lord whatever people may call him, he means many different things to many different people, but I believe He is Love. I believe he loves you Benjamin, and you too Jim, loving God was the simplest decision I ever made. Judging on what I have read about God's relationship with Moses and Abraham has led me to believe that we are to be friends with God. Moses and Abraham were able to changes Gods mind, or I guess make intercession for their people, that is how I know and I believe that God doesn't take our free will and why he allows us to think for ourselves. I have a friend who told me that from a literary stand point the Bible is a great work or art, but it was just to unbelievable for her. I agreed, it is unbelievable that Jesus, never once definded himself, he never once made an excuse for himself or why he was here. He never once apologized for trying something new and never backed down. He showed character traits that I hope to portray some day. The Bible is unbelievable and I believe every word of it. I hope that someday you will find a way to forgive the ones that forced you into "Christianity" God is more than a religion, he is a way of life. He knows your heart, and his opinion is all that matter, so I will now stop giving mine. For the bloggers of this site, please go easy on us believers, we don't have all day to research all the different ways to disprove Jesus, we are about our fathers work. The Word is alive, Jesus is its grand subject, our Good is its design and the Glory of God is its end. Praise God, he lives in me.
I am stronger now that I know I cannot rely on an imaginary friend.
If you would please just take some time, even if it is years, to do some research about what you think you know, BEFORE posting. I'm sure you think you mean well, as do some of the other christian posters do. But if you're only interested in telling us what YOU think, and not understanding why we think what you think is wrong, then why should we listen to anything you have to say?
To assert that "God is more than a religion, he is a way of life. He knows your heart, and his opinion is all that matter(s)...", is YOUR opinion. Unless you have some credible evidence for this deity. No? O.k. then.
"For the bloggers of this site, please go easy on us believers, we don't have all day to research all the different ways to disprove Jesus"
Go easy? Why? Are we asking too much of you already, with our demands that you actually learn about what you claim to believe?
YOU WANT US TO RESPECT YOUR LAZINESS!?!?!!!
Don't have all day to find out how to use your brain because you are ignorantly doing so many things you don't have any time to stop and think if you are being an idiot. So WE need to treat you NICE?
see here
Go spout your nonsense somewhere else.