A Christian in doubt

sent in by SomeoneWithProblems

I'm a Christian in lots of Doubt and Confusion.

I believe God for quite a while now, but the churches, the people... are pissing me off everyday.

Whenever I have problems, I talk to the pastor, and the believers there, and they all say the same shit "It's God's Will" "It's a Trial" "Pray about it".....and I'm not talking about just 1 church, but ALL the ones I've been to(11 different churches).

Honestly those responses from them aren't good enough....

And I don't read the bible much honestly(yes, I'm terrible at being a christian), because the other christians happily read it to me anyway.

I don't know....it seems like Brainwashing, and the bible was constructed and put together by a council who VOTED which verses and books will ultimately go in the Bible.

Theres verses like

"don't associate with non-believers(2nd cor 6:14-18)".

Theres "Humbling(matthew something : something)"

"turn the other cheek(forgot, too lazy to look at my bible)" and those are one of the things that confuses me about christianity

"don't associate with nonbelievers"

That Says to me: "close your mind to the people with different views and beliefs, and only listen to Christ believers"

"Humbling, and Turn the other cheek"

what? so if a pastor was tells me shit, I should humble myself and listen, learn, and not reply? and be like him?

I'm not gonna say all churches are like that, but the ones I've been to, are "Humble yourself, you don't know better, so listen to WHAT I HAVE TO SAY!"

those verses together to me, look like this:

Being Humble + Christians ideals - Anything outside of christian ideas = brainwashing

(it's a bit vague, I know)

The Church tells me I should be a good Christian this, and good Christian that, and at the same time I should come as I am.

Tells me God loves me for who I am, but he or she will like it MORE If I'm this way or that

I see mostly Hypocrites within the Church,

I see Pastors, Deacons buy themselves a Brand new Lexus and/or Benz with the Offerings and says it's from God.....

The People In The Churches are filled with Fearmongers("the End time is coming!"), Arrogant Goody-2-shoes, People who talk like their Shit don't stink, and etc...

They bitch about me Smoking cigarettes and shit, says "it's god's temple, don't ruin it, blah blah blah blah!"

But what about them?

They eat hamburgers, burritos, foods that have LOTS of fat, clogs ateries, and shit.

They eat candy bars and drink lots of coffee which are bad for your health too.

And they talk shit about my habit, how much of a BAD person I am for smoking...

To me! If you Eat lots of food that might risk you of heart failure and/or could give you diabetes, If you drink coffee by the gallons.

Then me smoking cigarettes isn't a problem!!!

I talked about these matters and subjects to other christians and pastors, and they all tell me something different thats not relevant to what I say, they change the subject or get offended and/or don't speak to me...

I'm not saying "I'm the better man"

infact I'm a bad person myself, or in christian terms: "a evil sinner".

But shit I don't try change people or evangelize.

And if I was to become this "good person"

I would never even try to change a person into what I became, because I'm human, I error... ALOT

I think Tracts are ignorant Bullshit to me(Halloween Evil? are you serious!?).

I have LOTS animosity for Fundy Christians, Because of the shit they pull, like they try to ban Marilyn Manson, They burned Harry Potter books, They tried Ban Dungeons & Dragons, Magic: The Gathering Card game, and the other the freedom-hating shit they do. And they say "it's for the GOOD of the people."

You know, Freedom is also GOOD for The People, as long as The People don't PHySiCaLLy harm others.

This "christianity" I believe in:

The Morals, the self-righteousness, The Corruption, etc.. in this religion of "Good", it raises my left eye brow and leaves me a "What The Fuck?" face expression.

The Ex-Christian Bible Quiz Trips me out, but it's true....

The Bible Advocates Slavery and Racism

I know Evolution theory is WAY LOGICAL more than Creationism.

Even with these Subjects...

I still believe in God, I still have faith.

but I don't know...

I'm VERY VERY VERY CONFUSED

And If I say "I'm Confused and Doubtful of my belief"

I KNOW FOR-SURE-100%

The Christian(s) will tell me "The Devil is Tempting you! and The Devil putting those thoughts in your head."

And They'll Rebuke the shit out of me

So no use in asking a christian about this shit

Please comment and Know

I am Open-minded about this

81 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would recommend joning our ex-christian.net forum.

All we can offer is advice and moral support, but the final decision would always be yours.

There are some open-minded christians on our board, whose faith has been strengthened after coming here.

Marty Mets said...

I know exactly where you are comming from, I had the same answers fed to me when I would ask serious questions as a child. I was even told once that the devil will use logic to trick you!

Forget about talking to xtians or pastors about your troubles, they will only try and make you stay with them because they want your MONEY. It's like you comming to me and asking me about the recording studio down the street. Do you really think I'm going to give you an accurate representation of their abilities when I have my studio right here for you to use? Of course not, I want your biz, and I'm going to badmouth the competition even if they have better gear.

You have to think for yourself, and your on the way to discovering how big of a lie the church really is. My suggestion (besides joining the forums) is too buy a few books about the bible from a secular viewpoint. A great place to start would be "Who Wrote the Bible" by Friedman, and "Who Wrote the New Testament" by Mack. Once you understand how that book came to be, you will be able to read it for what it is, and not some magical inerrent text. Good luck!

steve said...

Dear Someone,

Gosh, your anger and frustration really comes through strong. I am glad you have been monitoring this forum.

I suspect the religious persecution started in your childhood, as it did with most of us. Along with the books that Marty recommends, I would urge you to read The Family, by John Bradshaw. It's a good explanation about what happens to us in childhood, and how that leads to obsessive behavior in adulthood. Religiosity is just another obsessive, destructive behavior we use to mask what is really going on inside. While Bradshaw's discussion isn't directed at Christianity per se, he talks about unsuccessfully using religion to overcome alcoholism, i.e., substituting one distracting addiction for another.

Information is the key to your happiness. Good luck!

Steve

GoneNsane said...

Christianity is all about "do as I say, not as I do." Even God does that. Ditch the Christianity and look into who God is for yourself. Read everything you can get your hands on and make an informed decision on whether he exists or who he is. Believing something because someone else tells you to is dangerous, always do your own research.

Marianna Trench said...

Hi! I'm glad you came here, and I hope this site helps you find some of the answers you're seeking.

As for me, I'm still unsettled on whether there is a god or not - and I probably always will be, because I don't think it's possible for any human to KNOW (as opposed to simply taking it on "faith," which means believing because you believe because you believe ... etc.).

I do agree with gonensane that you won't find god in the christian bible. Like the scriptures of every other of the many, many different religions, it was written by men who were products of their time and many of whom were pushing political or social agendas. And, as I've posted here before, I think if I wanted to start a religious movement (or a cult), the first thing I'd try to do is convince my followers that they must accept what I say on faith or else face a horrible punishment. For me, that alone is enough to avoid christianity.

SpaceMonk said...

Keep doubting.

You may be hanging on to faith because you like the idea of the securities christianity promises(?) - but you know it doesn't feel right.

It doesn't feel right, because it isn't.
Nobody truly knows, and whatever people tell you is what some other person figured out for themself anway. They just lazily decided to follow it.

So just figure out your own truth.
You already have some sound principles, re. your opposition to brainwashing and 'evangelising', not wanting to harm others, etc.

I'd say just keep following that path, without the rules imposed by others.

Anonymous said...

Everything your saying is valid. Unfortunately you've been 'led down the primrose path' so to speak. I know I was a hardcore christian for a long time. The straight truth is what they've taught you is a bunch of lies. What it actually does is put alot of burden on you thats not supposed to be there. The christians will put this burden on you but won't ever lift a finger to help you carry it. That's the way they were taught to do.

It was a great shock to me too to learn that the whole thing is bullshit. Believe me your alot better off without church. It's one of the worst religions out there IMO because it promises to make you free but never delivers. Most people usually get really screwed up from it.

But keep going the direction your heading, it sound to me your about to escape :) You can believe in God without the perversion of religion if you have an open mind.

Bentley said...

SWP, We feel your pain bro. we've all been there, done that bullshit dance!

Waltzing for jesus, the donkey chaser!

Listen, before christ what did people do to be saved? Roast animals and drink blood or urine...yuk!!

Now the latest fad to be saved is, to nail a human up on a stick and pork roast the bastard, in the heat of the Sun! Ahh the sweet smell of human flesh on the barbe, saith the Lord!!

Now that smoking habit you got, I used to smoke:-( the best time to quit is when you get the flu, they taste like a smoldering rug when you're sick with the flu. I quit cold turkey, almost two packs a day in 1982.

Anyway, where did smoking tobacco originate? The Native American Indians, they only smoked it after meals, mostly at the evening meal to help them relax and to discuss their previous days adventures, so they never smoked anything in the amount that us Europeans do, because it was hard to process large amounts at one time and they never had rolling papers, they smoked it in a pipe.

The Indians never abused the use of tobacco, like we all do here, we abuse everything until we are infatuated and saturated, we have people that abuse Food, so much that some people have to be cut and carried out of their own house...holy bejesus!!! then there are those that abuse alcohol, so much that they have to go to AA, then there are those that abuse children, and some get caught, and alot never do, then there are some that abuse people, by proclaiming a hereafter life, if they can just convince anyone, then they can sneak out your money by diversion and smoke and mirrors and extraordinary promises, mostly bold face lies, from whom you built a strong trust:-( so sad!

So some people replace the habit called religion, with a physical habit with, drinking, food, drugs, smoking, etc.

So now you know all of the above is abuse, you admitted it yourself, now that thing called a cigarette between your fingers is speaking to you, it is an abuser to you, it wants to manipulate and control you, it smells like a dead corpse, it wants to make you a dead corpse, it wants to get inside you and eat you from the inside with cancer, are you going to let a little cigarette stick manufactured by a man, to control your very being? I should think not! You're much bigger than it is as a human, are you going to let an inanimate object take over your mind and whip and control you?

You! A rational thinking, living human being?

Cigarettes and food and drugs and alcohol and religion are all from the power of sugestion, I would be a better person if I just had a cigarette, I would be a better person if I just had a drink of whiskey, I would be a better person if I had a Big-Mack, I would be abetter person if I had a tattoo, etc.

What would it take to make you a better person? A cigarette? A shot of whiskey? A snort of cocaine? A religious title? A plate full of food, or non of the above?

See SWP, what America has become?

A bunch of mindless Jesus mimicking self-fulfilling couch potato's.

Are you a real human that can think on their own or are you a product of American commercialization brainwashing?

Or would you rather Be one of Them?

I rest my case!

mq59 said...

You are correct that eating unhealthy foods is just as bad for you as smoking.

Obviously smoking is terrible for you and I encourage you to quit, but they're being rather hypocritical (or ignorant).

By "creationism," do you mean the idea of a creator God or "Young Earth Creationism" (the Earth is only 6,000 years old, the Great Flood is responsible for all fossils, etc)?

I am a Christian and I believe in the evolutionary process. I believe it was guided by God--after all, where did all the matter in the "cosmic egg" that blew up in the Big Bang come from?

And you are correct that there are a lot of sleazy so-called "leaders" in the church who like to abuse their positions and threaten anyone who challenges them.

However, you don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject Christianity altogether. You sound like you need a different church.

Dano said...

mq59 wrote:
"I am a Christian and I believe in the evolutionary process. I believe it was guided by God--after all, where did all the matter in the "cosmic egg" that blew up in the Big Bang come from?"

Dan muses:
mq59 -During the 3 or 4 billions of years that it took us to arrive at the top of the food chain, our ancestors had to prove that they were the best at killing and reproducing, so they could qualify as our progenitors.

Now when "Org" the Neanderthal was bashing out the brains of his smaller weaker brother "Ugg," so he could "DO IT" to Ugg's female, was God smiling, and proclaiming: "Now that's what I'm talking about Org! Now let me see you love that hairy bitch!

Dan (Who believes God created "Natural selection, and enjoys watching the weak being eaten by the strong)

Herb Schaffler said...

mq,
Where did God come from? If God could be here on his own, why couldn't the matter that exploded by the big bang be here on its own? As far as the advice to try another church, I tried several churches, but could never shake my scrupulosity. There is just too much nonsense in Christianity, it doesn't matter what church you go to. I remained a Christian not because it gave me any joy but because I was afraid of going to Hell. I finally got the courage to start reading skeptical books such as Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian." That book helped convince me of the unreality of Christianity. I especially liked his analysis of an impossibility of an afterlife. He pointed out how thoughts can no longer continue to exist without a living brain to generate those thoughts. On this basis, there can be no afterlife and therefore no Hell. So I was finally free of all that worrying about religion. I also discovered that I can be a more moral person without Christianity because Christianity promotes intolerance and thus hatred for my fellow man.

mq59 said...

The bit about finding another church was mostly for "SomeonewithProblems" b/c most of his objections seem to do more with "church people," not with Christianity itself.

I've read "Why I am Not a Christian." Other than the stuff about "this generation shall not pass," most of its arguments are not that convincing.

And on the matter of "this generation," the Greek can also mean "race"--as in, there will still be Jews when He returns.

mq59 said...

Sorry, I didn't see the "11 different churches" bit.

How many different denominations? And were these churches all in the same small geographic area?

I attended Methodist/Baptist churches in one county and a Presbyterian church in another and they were quite different (not just theology, but in terms of what sort of people).

mq59 said...

And although it is true that councils decided what would go in the Bible and what wouldn't, the important books (the four canonical Gospels, for example) had always been thought of as Scripture by the churches.

It was lesser-known books like Revelation, Jude, etc. that were disputed.

The inclusion or exclusion of Jude or Revelation won't affect things much.

The inclusion/exclusion of, say, the Gospel of Judas, is what makes a difference, and that had been rejected early on (a 2nd century Church person whose name I forgot--Ireaneus perhaps denounced a gospel that sounded a lot like the GoJ that's making the news these days).

Hope this helps.

Rob said...

Dear SomeoneWithProblems, let me encourage you to read the Bible more. Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about imperfect churches and church people.

It almost sounds like you believe "about" God, but not "in" God. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I tried out a lot of churches before I found a good, humble group of people who truly love God and worship Him. That type of Church is out there.

Let me correct you and others about how the New Testament was compiled. Eusebius wrote in 324 AD in his "The Church History" (prior to the Canon being put together) that most of Paul's epistles and all of the gospels were already in use by the early church. For the most part, the counsel that put the canon together was really just confirming what the early Church was already using, which included the weeding out of the Gnostic beliefs.

A good book to read on this subject is The New Testament Documents, by F. F. Bruce.

mq59 said...

The part about turning the other cheek is about loving one's enemies enough to even be non-violent when they're violent.

It is NOT believing what someone says uncritically.

Note that the Bible says "contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" and I assure you cult-of-personality pastors are NOT that faith.

And on the matter of the "don't be yoked together" with unbelievers, perhaps it could refer to not being married to them.

After all, Jesus Himself hung out with tax collectors, hookers, and even self-righteous obnoxious religions people (the high priests of His day).

Here's an interesting idea on what Paul could have been referring to:

http://www.crivoice.org/yoked.html

mq59 said...

Thanks for the back-up, Rob.

GOD said...

You are identified as a liberal chirstian like that of the author John Shelby Spong. You are a symbol of what Christianity should be like. If only there were more of you out there.

Free_Deist said...

It is possible to break away from Christianity and still believe in God or a higher power of some sort...after all, that's what I did...I became a Deist. We could argue on and on about whether a higher power exists or not, an utterly endless philosophical debate. However, Christian fundamentalism (or any fundamentalism, for that matter) is a load of hooey. Fundamentalism is simple: just don't think and do what you're told.

As for those fundies coming here trying to keep this open minded person in a closed minded system, leave him go. Your way truly is a way where you are told never to think...you can think, so long as you don't rock the boat. Once you discover the freedom of free thought, you'll never go back to closing your mind again.

Anonymous said...

The reason so many such as yourself are easily caught by religious fundamentalism is largely due to the lack of knowledge in the form of history, science and philosophy, especially so, the teaching of 'The classics' which were very much apparent within the curriculum of the affluent levels of society in the earliest parts of the 1900's, even the founding fathers of the United States of America were aware of them and tended towards secular viewpoints, you might want to do a search and key in any search engine phrases such as 'Is America a Christian Nation' and focus especially on Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin(it was Thomas Jefferson who created his own 'Jeffersonian Bible' discarding the myths and miracles for the sound philosophies of Jesus by the way.) Philosophy and ancient history in schools and even colleges is largely un-taught today as a matter of standard curricula and must be sought by the seeker whether through formal education or independently.

Your dilemma is truly the product of ignorance of 'The Classics' of mythology of which you can read a very excellent and informed discourse as regards Christianity at http://www.infidels.org, key in for 'm.m. mangasarian' (see his brilliant 'The Truth About Jesus' at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html
as well as 'Forgeries in Christianity' by Joseph Wheless see: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/
which exposes the role of the early Catholic church in this area.

To be sure, you will find plenty of charlatans and those looking to 'make a fast buck' while using Christianity, I have seen it, why only recently I encountered a real estate agent in a very isolated locale who happens to have over $6Million in real estate listings who is a member of C.R.E.N. an up and coming 'Christian' Real Estate Network. She violated the rules of HUD as well as the Department of Real Estate in my State of California by asking that 'verboten' question:'Are you a believer?' and even 'steered' us away from a neighboring city since it was too 'secular.' To be sure, she has a vested interest in the Christian cause because her part of California is relatively isolated and is the perfect stomping grounds for fundamentalist Christians looking for a place to call 'Home.' There's something like 4 churches within a less than a mile area of Northern California Real Estate and guess what? She's the real estate agent for that area, just wait 'till the California Department of Real Estate 'shops' her and catches her discriminatory practices!

I found a long time ago that education is the 'cure' to the faith which is borne of ignorance, please accept my invitation to join the fray of those who uphold knowledge which requires no 'belief' (belief and believe by the way have 'lie' in the middle of them since that's what it takes to have 'faith' of the depth required by religious fundamentalists) as well as those who realize that no being can accuse you when you simply and honestly do not have knowledge(or special 'powers' for that matter) and are perfectly willing and honestly able to suspend belief in anticipation of honestly demonstrable facts! Other great sites in addition to http://www.infidels.org are http://www.ffrf.org and http://www.atheists.org Enjoy and never forget that it's far better to live a life then a be'lie'f!

Steve R said...

Wow Someone with problems, you really put alot of stuff in there-hard to comment or discuss intelligently on all of them. If you are really wanting to have some discussion about this, with someone who does not want your money but who does beleive in the God of the Bible and found it to be true, then give me a hollar (is that how you spell hollar?)

I will say this here, God never intended it to be the way many of you have experienced God. Many of you have said that Christianity is just another obsessive behavior, a farce or a scam, and things like that.

Bottom line is this, no matter what the subject on God, one guy will write the Bible is not true and give all sorts of evidence, and another will write that it is true and give all sorts of evidence.

The bottom line is this, God and following His Word has changed the life of countless people througout history, mine included. I am a pastor, and the luxury of the internet promises you I am "not out for your money or to get you in my church." I have found truth in the Bible. So if you want to have some lively discussion, let me know

boomSLANG said...

"The bottom line is this, God and following His Word has changed the lives of countless people througout history, mine included."

No, the bottom line is that God's existance is NOT obvious(objectively evident), or else we would be having discussions like this right now. I would also argue that if someone said "oxygen doesn't exist", no one would give a rat's ass, let alone, debate them on the matter. And BTW, "truth" is not ascertained by "majority" vote...i.e...."countless people".

So....to start some lively discussion, let's start by hearing/seeing some objective evidence for God's existance, and then, some objective evidence that the Christian God is the "one true God".

My Two Cents said...

Get educated, and the bible will be seen for what it is, a history of warring tribes in the Mediterranean area, and the evolution of religious culture, from the orthodox rabbinical jews to the early Roman Christian movement. After Roman christianity (Catholicism), it divided into many sects, to include the entire movement of protestantism, as many religiously affiliated folk protested the votes that were made at the first council of nicaea, to include the divinity of jesus.

So, bottom line, reading the bible literally is grounds for calling someone an idiot. Anyone, reading the bible literally will never be capable of logically reconciling the mythology of unicorns, dragons, satyrs, arrowsnakes, chariots of fire, god with flames shooting out his mouth, etc. and not to mention the fact of the countless contradictions that exist between the OT and NT, because the NT was written to "counter" the OT jewish laws & culture for the most part. Any religious course at a respectable university would provide as much information.

If one studies on their own, they are going to have to read books from both perspectives, and not biased books, but books on historical facts, so one can piece together the past using reason.

On the matter of a higher power. One must take a Platonic stance in order to make such a stand, and personally, it isn't that hard to dispell philosophically. Actually, its quite easy.

If someone wraps god up in this natural realm, then it gets more interesting at least. Still, one has to consider themselves as part of a hierarchy of sorts for there to be a "higher" power. Who is to say, that we aren't individually just part of the higher power ourselves, if one wants to discuss such matters - we are products of nature, right. Thus, no higher power. Personally, I don't like the term higher power, it connotes the helplessness of humanity and the belief that there is "true" separation between objects of nature, i.e., people, natural energy, etc. It would be interesting to hear an argument for such a separation, using any means possible.

My Three Cents said...

Steve R: "Bottom line is this, no matter what the subject on God, one guy will write the Bible is not true and give all sorts of evidence, and another will write that it is true and give all sorts of evidence."

Actually, you can't define "god" discretely, unless you are claiming to be omniscient - I'll take that silence, as you're not omniscient. Thus, you can't present your "god", from an objective stance, all you have, is your subjective opinion on the matter, a personal god, you have created to make sense of the words in a book, and the experiences you have assigned to a god in your life.

About the bible, the main argument isn't whether the bible is "true" or not, I'll go along and say its really "true". However, I'll say it truly reflects the history of a culture over a two thousand year period, to denote their beliefs, and the beliefs of a god in the bible, change over time. The bible starts out with the jewish god El, without a hell, and before the end of the NT, YHWH becomes the new god in town, and he creates hell, and sub-contracts the job of caretaker to satan. Anyone, who hasn't read the bible, and learned at least that much, really needs to crack the book open.

So, the truth, is seen historically as a reflection of the era in which it was written, and there was just as much non-divine jesus material floating around at the exact same time. To suggest that the bible is "true", as evidence for a "supernatural" deity, begs the question, of how one derives that answer from reading anonymous "natural" material. There's a reason religion requires "faith", as logic and evidence do not support a transcendent supernatural god. The term "transcendent" means, a god doesn't make house calls, and he/she can never be reached while someone is still living in this natural reality. Hence, "faith", in that which can't be proven, not "logic".

SpaceMonk said...

Rob said:”Dear SomeoneWithProblems, let me encourage you to read the Bible more.”

Indeed, particularly Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 2:32-34 & 3:3-7, and much, much more...

“Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about imperfect churches and church people.”

Yes, a kinky S&M relationship of submission - or Eternal torture.
Would we want a relationship with the God of the above passages, if we were told his name was Moloch or Baal?
Why would we want a relationship with a God claiming ‘love’ and ‘mercy’, yet who then masterminded the creation of Eternal Hellfire?

He could have set up something like Reincarnation, which would eventually allow Everyone to enter Heaven, but No, he settled for Eternal torture…

It must please him, since we already know from the OT time of sacrifices that he is pleased by the sweet aroma of burning flesh…
(Actually, I love the smell of a good sausage sizzle myself…)

“I tried out a lot of churches before I found a good, humble group of people who truly love God and worship Him. That type of Church is out there.”

Yes, so humbled… except this is exactly what ‘SomeoneWP’ says he is being aggravated by. Good advice…

SWP is not looking to humbly submit, he’s too intelligent for that.
You can't see that the path you've found to work in in your life won't necessarily work for everybody else.
SWP only needs a bit of learning to go with his intelligence (something it seems he's already getting now that he's seeing past the boundaries set by christianity) then he will be beyond your reach, for 'Good'.

”… For the most part, the counsel that put the canon together was really just confirming what the early Church was already using, which included the weeding out of the Gnostic beliefs.”

This sickens me.
It’s the ‘weeding out’ of the Gnostic beliefs that made christianity into the monstrous overbearing cancer of our civilisation that it is today.

Someone already mentioned the Thomas Jefferson bible which had the miracles taken out and the wisdom teachings left in.
It is remarkable how similar it ends up to the Gnostic 'Gospel of Thomas'.

Here's an interesting article, written by an exchristian, on the topic:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Jesus-Without-Miracles1dec05.htm

What a paradise we would live in if only we understood the gospel in a more esoteric sense.

Bentley said...

Steve R wrote;

I am a pastor, and the luxury of the internet promises you I am "not out for your money or to get you in my church." I have found truth in the Bible. So if you want to have some lively discussion, let me know


You are a liar sir! If you were not out for the money, you would not gladly receive the money!

You are a theif and a liar! You are stealing money from people by falsely promising them something in return, that you have absolutely no proof of.

If you're not out for the money, then, I suggest you return all that you took, back to them.

Prove to the congregation that you're not out for the money! Give it all back.

Be a witness right here today before God and the world that you're not out for the money, GIVE IT ALL BACK, PROVE TO THE WORLD AND ESPECIALLY TO GOD YOU'RE NOT OUT FOR THE MONEY, YOU WILL NOT! BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN FOUND A LIAR, AND YOU WILL BURN IN BOILING FLAMES OF HELL FOR BEING A LIAR, YOU LYING WEASEL!

I WANT MY FRIGGIN MONEY BACK, ALL OF IT!!!

Dano said...

Did you ever notice that posters like mq59, and Rob, will hang around this site day after day, talking about who said what, two thousand years ago, trying to sound intellectual...

...but if you try to make them wrap their mind around some of the most OBJECTIVE, glaring illogical concepts, of a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent supreme being...

... one that supposedly is the synonym for love itself, who supposedly created everything including sin, Satan, and all of our imperfections, and all of the suffering...

...and a system of evolution where the strong survived, and are surviving by conquering and eating the weak, they will dance right by it...

...and guide the conversation right back to their SUBJECTIVE perceptions of how the world really is?

To put it another way. You simply cannot get them to focus on reality!

I have observed this behavior over and over by some (otherwise) pretty brilliant people here, and I am fascinated by it!

Dan (Who would have you pay close attention to the dancing of the preachers, and the Bible scholars!)

Marty Mets said...

I'm still waiting for mq59 to explain to me why jesus condoned slavery in the NT. He left the comment section from my anti-testimony right after I asked him to explain it for me. Ran away like a little school girl! :) I guess there is no stock answer that he can parrot from an apologetic book, and his mind has atrophied from lack of use within the church. Good thing I'm not holding my breath for an answer!!

Marianna Trench said...

Hi, Dan! Like you, I always wondered why people who otherwise seem intelligent can talk themselves into "believing" christian mythology. I guess their brains are just wired differently in that they lack the capacity for whatever combination of curiosity and analytical thinking led us to leave the cult.

Take mq59, for example. This person is obviously not a fundie, and not bitter and hateful like so many of the True Believers™ that try to practice evangelism here. She or he has enough brain power to understand that evolution makes sense (although her or his statement that god "directed" evolution shows that she or he doesn't really know a lot about the randomness of the process, e.g., the many examples of failed evolutionary lines that went no where).

Mq59 even makes some intelligent arguments for the possible existence of something that could be called god (though, as another poster noted above, we could go on with the pros and cons of that debate for eternity). Yet, from there mq59 goes on to make the huge leap to posit the truth of the doctrines of christianity. Ask for proof, and what you get are some emotional-based statements that, in the end, simply boil down to blind faith.

Nope. Don't understand how these people think. I'd like to see a logical argument for the christian point of view, but none has emerged in the past 2000 years or so, and I don't have "faith" that one ever will.

Herb Schaffler said...

mq,

Jesus also said that there were some standing here today who would not die before I come back.

Herb Schaffler said...

mq,

Did you realize that the Gospel of Luke only made it into the Cannon by one vote?

Herb Schaffler said...

rob,

How can we trust anything Eusebius ever wrote. He is on record as saying he would lie if it promoted Christianity.

Claus said...

Yes, I too having doubts...my English not the bestest, but what should I do?

OF course I could joing the group, but what books should read I?

rob said...

danno, I don't hang around this site day after day, yesterday was my first visit. You and Marianna and others seem to wonder why certain of your objections aren't answered, or responded to intelligently.
Speaking for myself, but I suspect mq59 and Steve R are similar, I don't see the point of answering them. For example, I made one encouraging comment to SWP and all I saw were bunch of negative comments and supposed examples of contradictions in the Bible.
It's a little like trying to reason with a mob; it ain't goin' happen.
I could take a great amount of time to answer each person's arguments in detail, but what's the point? Most people hear don't seem to want answers or reasonable arguments, they just want to vent like ben, or misquote scripture, like herb has.

Herb Schaffler said...

Rob,

Can you prove that I have misquoted scripture? I am at work so I don't have a Bible or a concordance here to show you where the quote comes from or exactly what it says word for word. Perhaps somebody else out there knows the quote and can tell Rob where it is and exactly what it says word for word.

SpaceMonk said...

Rob,
Seeing as I am one of those who responded to your post I am open to whatever you want to respond to me with.

It seems that you see christianity as holy, good and pure - so to you anybody ridiculing and mocking it must surely be negative and evil?
But, just because I have no respect for christianity, doesn't mean I have no respect for you as a person.

I deride christianity, and the points you raised in it's defense, but my mocking is only to get you to see how ridiculous it all is.
If my points are not valid please point them out.

Me pointing out the disgusting violence in the OT seems to give you the impression that it is me that is disgusting and violent...?

No, it seems to me that you've only got one eye open, and it is focused only on the fairyland side of christianity - all those claims of love and justice and mercy.

I only want to open your other eye to the rest of your bible -the dark side of your god that you like to ignore - in order that you may get some spiritual depth perception.

I'm not particulaly concerned about historical accuracies, and niggly contradictions but rather the theology behind christianity.

Which is why I brought up Reincarnation.
I say that the mere concept of Reincarnation, whether you actually believe in it or not, is enough to completely debunk the bible-god - because it more perfectly fits all his claimed desires, and is infinitely more loving and merciful than eternal hellfire.

I have yet to see any christian successfully defend 'eternal hell' against Reincarnation.
Even mq59...

If you want to give it a go don't think I won't try to understand what you have to say (or that I won't attack your response...)

Dano said...

ROB,
One little baby is born to wealthy parents, her mother was well nourished, she has no birth defects, she is attractive, intelligent and healthy, she will never be hungry, she will participate in many stimulating endeavors all the way through school, and when she graduates from college she will be offered a job paying a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year.

She will meet a boy with similar characteristics, they will get married and produce a bunch of happy healthy offspring. They may or may not become Christians.

Another baby will be born, whose mother was malnourished, and consequently that baby has several glaring birth defects, caused by the under nourishment of her mother during pregnancy.I.E poor eyesight, and spinal deformity. Because she was born to poor parents, without any education, she will never go to school. She will have to start work at the age of 6 or 7, doing repetitive mind numbing drudgery, for little or no pay.

If she lives to the age of 13, she may be taken as a wife by an older male for a while but will eventually be thrown out like garbage.

She will never in her lifetime even hear or understand anything about the Christian religion, just like her parents before her. If they have any religious beliefs those beliefs are most likely Islamic, or Hindi.

Now here are my questions;
Why doesn't God recall Satan? (Blink his eye and just eliminate him)
What chance does the second girl have of becoming a true Christian?
Where is the "divine justice" in this scenario?
Where is the divine love?
Surely theses poor unfortunate people pray! Where is the prayer answered?
Why are some people born with the intelligence to think rationally, and others just don't get it?

Dan (Who want's to know what's is being argumentative about that?)

mq59 said...

Marty,

I don't own any apolegetic books, nor do I refer to them.

Furthermore, the reason I didn't post anymore is as follows.

Soon after the debate I had with Webmaster over whether or not the Bible actually says there are dragons, unicorns, etc (Webmaster cited the KJV to prove it did; I cited other translations saying "goats" or "serpents"), I found I could no longer access the site from the computer I generally use.

On the matter of Jesus condoning slavery, I don't know. You see, I can admit that I don't know something. :)

However, do we know for a fact the person who came to him was a slave or a free servant? Some translations say "slave" and some say "servant."

Picky yes, but still.

mq59 said...

Spacemonk,

On the matter of the reincarnation system, I don't know either.

Happy?

mq59 said...

Marianna,

Thanks for the compliments.

I know many evolutionary lines have failed--trilobites and dinosaurs are gone, for example.

However, why did any evolutionary paradigm succeed at all? Why didn't life simply burn out early in the process, if it event formed at all?

My_Two_Cents,

Webmaster and I debated this sometime in late April or early May.

The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl.

In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch.

Ben,

Take a chill pill, man.

boomSLANG said...

"In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

absolute/possible

acheivable/fantasy

married/bachelor




"perfect being"/"translation glitch"

.:webmaster:. said...

MQ59 said: "The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl.

In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

No one knows how to translate these "nouns of God." So the modern translators have arbitrarily compromised on more familiar nouns, that's all.

MQ, it's the WORD OF GOD, but no one knows what the HELL God's words are.

Interesting isn't it?

Makes me wonder what else they've decided to fake.

Honest Christian said...

Rob: "Most people hear don't seem to want answers or reasonable arguments, they just want to vent like ben, or misquote scripture, like herb has."

Rob, I am open minded, and need your guidance. It appears you find reason to be quite useful in searching for the truth. I pride myself on my ability to reason, yet I am confronted many times as you on the issues surrounding religion. Recently, I came across a list of contradictions in the bible.

The contradictions that I found were broad, but, easily categorized according to what a person seeks from the bible.

For instance, I read the bible constantly seeking "Literal" insights, but when I entered conversation with some skeptics to point out my view, I am usually asked to click on the following link that lists "literal" contradictions of the bible;

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

There are over 368 "literal" contradictions listed, all taken "literally" from the bible. Like you, I don't want to nit pick over each one, but logically speaking, isn't the only way out of a literal contradiction, to explain who, what, where, when, why and how the person making each of the contradictory statements was "thinking"? I am caught, thinking that that is an impossibility, as I am not omniscient, and all I have are the words in front of me. When I attempt to interpret the words to get the message across, I get pummeled because I am putting my own spin on the words to make the conflicting statements fit the message, according to skeptics.

I tried to tell them god gave "unconditional love", and no matter what a person did in life, they would receive the love of god, because he doesn't require anything from them, they are his children, he created us, he loves us. And then, I get the following link.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html

There are over 1,079 topics that contradict the god of the bible, as being "omnibenevolent" and loving his children in an unconditional manner. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, (because I can't use a literal argument, with all of the literary contradictions) how a god could be just and have unconditional love, just as a mother has for their children, with all of the contradictions. Typically, I get told that I am trying to speak for god, when I attempt to present a case, especially when I suggest god, is a god of love and ultimate compassion.

Then, I have tried to seek information in the bible, that is "omni-relevant"... that takes into account topics that are relevant as much today as they were yesterday, as a supreme god's guidance is based on omniscience, and relevant as much today as it is yesterday, but then I get the following link slammed at me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

There are over 986 topics that contradict the bibles' guidance as being "omni-relevant", for all time, as much yesterday as the guidance is for today. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, (because I can't use a literal argument, with all of the literary contradictions, and I can't use an argument that supports a "god" who only wants the best for his children, because of the loss of "omnibenevolence"), why a god would provide biblical statements that are not religiously relevant.

Then, I tried to seek gods' insights in the bible, as god being omnibenevolent, because all humanity was created with fallen natures, and all fall short of the glory of god, thus, god's guidance must support "tolerance" between the brothers and sisters of humanity, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

There are over 527 topics that contradict the bibles' guidance for "tolerance", Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, that god is truly omnibenevolent, and tolerant of people of all religions, and beliefs. God doesn't have favored people, that was the message of Paul, right. However, I am constantly challenged on this topic, as it appears that some of the biblical passages support hatred, bigotry, and violence.

Then, I tried to seek gods' guidance in the bible, so that I can lead my family with religiously founded family values, so that I could attempt to bring my family towards the glory of god, even though we all fall short of god by our sinful natures, I felt I needed to provide my family a road-map in life, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html

There are over 305 topics that provide biblical statements that would be considered abusive by the A.M.A., and A.P.A. standards today. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, how family values have changed over the last few thousand years, and how god wants us to obey his words, even though prison may be the price we pay, Paul went to prison on occasion, for his beliefs. Still, I find it hard to support such a view, especially when there are passages that condone misogyny, or hatred and mistreatment of women.

Then, I tried to seek gods' guidance in the bible, so that I could bring others to him, by showing his "omnipotent" presence, and his unwavering trustworthiness, by presenting the prophecies that have come to pass, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

There are over 194 topics that provide biblical statements that show prophecies that have not come to pass, or have at least conflicted internally within the bible itself. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain from my personal point of view, how god is trustworthy, and how "all" people need to believe in the words of the bible as the prophecies of the second coming are real, and people should fear for their salvation.

Then, I tried to seek gods' biblical guidance in the bible, so that I could show how holy the words of the bible itself are, and how each of us need to speak the words of the bible in our daily lives, so that we may be a shining example of the true christ, but then I get the following link shewn to me.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lang/long.html

There are over 169 topics that provide biblical statements that show the apostles of god, calling people "whores, dogs, etc.", things I wouldn't want to hear from children, not to mention the vivid pornography presented in many of those identified topics. Like you, I don't want to nit pick each of these topics, but, I find myself trying to explain why a holy person, of god, a messenger of the most holy, would need to present pornography to illustrate divine guidance to the flock.

I tried to use science and historical references, but there are over 255 contradictions, with regard to modern science and historical fact.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

Like you, I don't really need to nit pick each biblical topic. However, there are many more contradictions that are presented by skeptics when I try and show them that the bible was written by "god" himself, and that its a perfect rendition of the holy word.

I find that taking the bible literally, creates a nightmare of contradictions, when seeking the morals, values, and ethics that would be expected from a just and loving god. However, if I use my own interpretation, to spread the good news and message of god, that I am placing myself in the position of a "god", and presenting my own case. Can you suggest a way, that I can find divine guidance without placing my own interpretation into the words of the bible, or use the bible in a literal manner? Thanks for any insights you can provide.

Erroneous Bible? said...

MQ59: "Why didn't life simply burn out early in the process, if it event formed at all?"

Gee, I know this is kinda crazy, but, seeing as how I want so much to delve into modern theoretical physics, I find that it would be quite an undertaking. However, lets let you think about this, lets say you start a fire, there MQ, and in some places in the forest the fire burns out, because fuel no longer exists, basically, it hits a dead end, and yet... sometimes the fire continue to burn in different directions as it finds fuel. Now, MQ, I know you aren't currently attending M.I.T., and I am quite sure you are not into the natural or theoretical mathematics, but, why don't you just try to conceptualize that in your mind, using some intuition, and see if that makes sense to you.

MQ59: "My_Two_Cents, Webmaster and I debated this sometime in late April or early May. The "dragons," "satyrs," etc. are from the KJV. Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats, for example, while another mythological creature is really an owl. In short, the presence of mythological animals in the Bible is a translation glitch."

A translation glitch? That would kind of call into question the whole bible now wouldn't it. And before I go, I read some of the apologist articles regarding the unicorn as somehow being confused with oxen. Here, you tell me.

Psalm 92:10 - "But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil."

Exalt: "laud: praise, glorify, or honor;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I wasn't aware that an oxen's horn held so much esteem, perhaps, a "magical" horn would be held in much "higher" regard, doesn't that seem to make more sense MQ59, of course, I am sure you can pretty much interpret it any way that you want in order to "force" it to make sense with the real world. However, if you want more "magical" moments of the bible, presented, I would be more than happy to please.

My Two Cents said...

The magical moments of the bible!

MQ59: "Later translations refer to "satyrs" as goats"

Isaiah 13:21 - "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Hey, MQ, ever see a "goat" dance? No, I thought not, only an embicile would suggest that a "goat" could be seen dancing, in glee. How about, a Roman mythological "faun". Yeah, that makes more sense.

Satyr: "one of a class of woodland deities; attendant on Bacchus; identified with Roman fauns"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Fauns: "In Roman mythology, fauns were place-spirits (genii) of untamed woodland. Romans connected their fauns with the Greek satyrs, wild and orgiastic drunken followers of Dionysus."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauns

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

"Lewis named the faun “Mr. Tumnus.”

Isn't that special.

"What is a faun, anyway? A faun is a woodland deity, rather like the Greek woodland god known as a satyr. The chief among these was Pan, a god who was also part goat and had hooves and horns. Fauns and satyrs are not part of today’s fantasy lives, but Lewis was drenched in Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. Satyrs have a sexual dimension..."

Well, if you want to read more there MQ59, enjoy

http://www.explorefaith.org/lewis/genesis.html

Thus, its quite obvious that the Satyr in the bible, is either a sexually driven beast, of Roman mythology, or, a "faun", NOT a plain goat there McFly.

A faun, with hoves for "Dancing" with glee, standing upright, on two feet. Yes, that makes sense, there MQ. I suppose we could suggest that a Satyr is a dancing "goat", yeah, that makes all the sense in the world, use a little imagination, I mean, the authors did, and they didn't have a problem with their mythology, why are you so uptight.

Well, let me keep looking, the bible is "ate up" with mythology, I mean, who do you actually "think" wrote the bible, "god", or a bunch of mythologically driven writers of that era. Gee, I'll let you think on that one.

Oh, and here's the site that had a crappy explanation for the "use" of the unicorn. They attempt to "cover" the mythological creatures using a switch between an oxen and unicorn, when they can "contextually" get away with it. They place their own "definition" onto the passages, where an "oxen" makes sense, while totally ignoring and misleading the reader away from the biblical use of the unicorn in the "true" contextual sense. That's called "lying" there MQ, but, just another contradiction, I mean, as someone stated earlier, there are many religious folk who are on the record for stating they'd lie for their religious beliefs. What kind of religion, supports liars?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp

mq59 said...

Does the Bible claim to be "omni-relevant"?

I never recall that being the case.

mq59 said...

I am aware of what fauns and satyrs are (or, rather, are supposed to be, since they don't exist). The Lewis link you gave me (although it's very nice in and of itself--thanks) does nothing to address the question at hand.

Does the Hebrew word for "dance" in that passage require the goats to be moving around bipedally? They could just be romping around animal-like.

My_Two_Cents,

People can lie in defense of any belief system, religious or otherwise. Just because there are people willing to lie in defense of it does not make it true or untrue.

Erroneous_Bible,

The Psalm you chose does not state that unicorns actually exist. It could be metaphorical. Folks use the metaphor "sowing dragon's teeth" and yet they don't believe in dragons.

Erroneous,

Good point about the fire and fuel. However, if the evolutionary process is the fire, who provided the forest (all the things that contribute to the process)?

Webmaster,

If the translators made the error in good faith, can they be accused of faking? I was under the impression intent to deceive was required.

mq59 said...

Two_Cents,

Could you point out in more detail the parts on in the Answers-in-Genesis article you believe are dishonest?

.:webmaster:. said...

MQ: Error is error is error is error is error is error is error.

ERROR!!!

Not perfect in all it says, there is error!

If there is error in any part, then there can be error in any part. If translators cannot get it right, how can anyone hope to interpret the error ridden translation?

ERROR! ERROR! ERROR! ERROR!

Do you get it yet? THERE IS ERROR!!!

My Two Cents said...

MQ59: "Does the Bible claim to be "omni-relevant"? I never recall that being the case."

Uh, re-read the passage where this is mentioned. "If" a "god" were to write a bible to establish its supremecy so that all mankind can receive the divine message of salvation "equally", then the message itself would have to remain "relevant", and beyond the realm of mis-interpretation.

Hence, when you suggest that the bible may in fact have been misquoted, mistranslated, outright manipulated, etc., its apparent that "god", was only interested in presenting the word once, through multiple anonymous authors knowing as an omniscient entity, that the word would be manipulated, mistranslated, or whatever word one wants to use to reconcile the obvious non-agreeing portions of the bible.

And, regarding "intent", "god" according to many religious people, is the "true" authority for the bible, therefore, if "god" is omnipotent, and omniscient, then "god", is credited for allowing manipulation, either deceitfully or unwittingly of "his" word. Thus, your god is responsible, for his word or he isn't, and if he isn't, according to your particular unique christian view, then the entire bible is then chalked up to literation errors, transcribing errors, etc., and "every" word in the bible is suspect of mis-interpretation.

Especially, since the bible was translated between languages that didn't have matching words for certain ideas, etc. So, if you are willing to suggest that your bible, is the product of mankind and his errorful ways, then, all I can say, is... "there are no original copies of ANY biblical scripture", thus, its all guesswork. Hence, its why many christians appear to want to "make" the bible "all true" according to a "god".

MQ59: "I am aware of what fauns and satyrs are (or, rather, are supposed to be, since they don't exist). The Lewis link you gave me (although it's very nice in and of itself--thanks) does nothing to address the question at hand."

The question my dear friend MQ, is "why" would a "god" put in his "holy scripture", a Satyr which at the time and era, suggested a sexually deviant beast who indulged in orgies on a regular occasion. If you read the "definition" of a Satyr, according to the "greek" understanding, you'd realize that Satyr's were many times thought of as "fauns". And, since you know what a "faun" is supposed to be, then you understand, they dance when they are happy, and "that" is in the context in which the passage was written.

Isaiah 13:21 - "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

MQ59: "Does the Hebrew word for "dance" in that passage require the goats to be moving around bipedally? They could just be romping around animal-like."

Uh, MQ, what does "dance" mean to you? Lets dispense, that some wiener is putting on joyful personalities to animals, and making them human-like. Have you ever seen an animal so happy it was doing the waltz? No? How about the tango? Hmmmm, well, perhaps a jig or two? No?

Obviously, since you don't have the original Hebrew text, and neither do I, then we have to use the words that were placed into the bible, no? If you can't trust what's in there, literally, then you begin to interpret and read minds, for people who lived two thousand years ago, are you capable of doing that MQ? Is "any" person capable of reading the mind of the person, who transcribed the original hebrew into different languages, which didn't have equivalent words many times? No.

Hence, either take the bible literally, and all of its mythological "glory", or attempt to rewrite the historical bible, as is what is happening at this very moment, by those who want to make a more "accurate" bible (removing the original cultural value), or, just create explanations, like, well... god only knows, which totally removes the "use" of the bible, as its tantamount to acknowledging that only a "god" would know, thus, I ain't god, thus, I don't know, and never will.

Human authors can't escape painting and putting their fingerprints onto their writings, we are not "objective" beings MQ. Thus, some author "painted" human like characteristics onto animals. Ever wonder how mythological creatures were created? Uh, painting human like characteristics onto "animals", and throwing in some magical powers, like a unicorns healing powers, etc. So, if you suggest that your biblical author is in fact placing human like characteristics onto animals, they are then, in their "own" personal way, creating mythological creatures of their "own" making. Its called imaginative prose, not "god" deliberated guidance, unless you are going to suggest that god was talking about dancing animals, through this anonymous author.

MQ59: "My_Two_Cents, People can lie in defense of any belief system, religious or otherwise. Just because there are people willing to lie in defense of it does not make it true or untrue."

That's rich. So, you suggest that a persons' words don't make something true or untrue? Uh, if you're talking natural phenomena, I can actually see your point there MQ. However, we aren't talking about natural law are we. The "origin" of the bible, is based on "words", and the credibility of the person who wrote down those "words".

If a person "lied", today, yesterday, or two days ago, all the way back to the original author, then, their "lie" does make the bible "untrue". If there is "one" liar between two thousand years ago and today, or one author who took liberties with rewriting the bible, to make sense to a greek population, or a jewish population, etc., then they are in fact "skewing", the "original" truth, and thus, the original meaning is lost, and is no longer "true" to the original content.

So, yes, a liar does in fact, make something "untrue", if they are passing information in a false manner. Paul, taught a different oral tradition than the Jews, using their own Jewish Authored Tanakh, are you suggesting that Paul wasn't preaching an "untrue" dialogue? Yes, of course he was, he was deliberately teaching against the rabbinical jews and their oral tradition.

MQ59: "Erroneous_Bible, The Psalm you chose does not state that unicorns actually exist. It could be metaphorical. Folks use the metaphor "sowing dragon's teeth" and yet they don't believe in dragons."

Yet, the people who lived in the era in which we are talking there MQ, "DID" believe in Dragons. We aren't talking about your common day attempt to reconcile the past with today, so that it makes sense.

Don't underestimate the primitive natures of the people we are talking of, and their superstitious natures. Everything, had a god behind it, or some mystical association.

"Herodotus, often called the "father of history", visited Judea c.450 BC and wrote that he heard of caged dragons in nearby Arabia, near Petra, Jordan. Curious, he travelled to the area and found two living, winged dragons that had been caught and held in an iron cage. He described them as ferocious beasts that would wipe out all of humanity if released."

Over time, I would accept that the "term" dragon, became more associated with the word serpent, especially in the Latin Vulgate, where Draconis, actually means serpent or snake. However...

"The Vulgate Bible is an early 5th century translation of the Bible into Latin made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I."

Lets not kid ourselves, that the meaning of the bible, and its very words have taken on entirely "new" meanings, over times, as people along the way interpreted them or rewrote them.

As the need to establish, reality, to the bible became more and more necessary, the term Dragon took on a more "believable" and "symbolic" meaning, i.e., snake or serpent, etc. Hard to tell a bunch of people, that dragons are real, if "none" were ever spotted or known to have existed. Science and philosophy was killing much of the mythology of the day, albeit slowly, thus, the need to make the bible more "RELEVANT" to the time and day, by changing the meaning of the word.

If you don't believe, me, look at the timeline, when the mythical dragons were believed to have existed, and work forward along the time line, checking the stories of the bible. As mythological creatures fall away due to scientific or basic belief systems, the words of the bible take on new meaning. TODAY, MQ, these same words are being portrayed in more "realistic" terms in order to force them into a more realistic sense, while attempting to remove the historical significance of the origins of that word.

Now, again, we don't have the original hebrew, so, its all guesswork. Except, that there are some people who actually believe the bible is the literal written work of a "god", there MQ, and its in that context, we are looking at "Relevance" to modern day, and an "unchanging" bible, which still holds its authority.

A changing of the meaning of the words of the bible, makes the bible "untrue" to the original context in which it was written. We may not have the original hebrew, but we have "plenty" of artifacts that depict "dragons" as flying reptiles, and pre-dating the biblical records on through the time the biblical records were written, and, in that same geographical region the authors in theory lived.

Thus, between you and me, I am going with the "contextual" truth, in the era it was written. If someone wants to place their common day belief onto the words, because "they" don't believe in dragons, then great, however, that's imaginative reasoning, not reading to discern the truth of the past writings, and the "true" meaning of the passage.

MQ59: "Erroneous, Good point about the fire and fuel. However, if the evolutionary process is the fire, who provided the forest (all the things that contribute to the process)?"

Did I say the evolutionary process was the "fuel"? Why don't you define "Evolution" for me MQ, this should be interesting. Do you believe in the laws of conservation, in regards to matter and energy? Hmmmm, do you consider a "soul" to be either matter or energy? Please explain.

MQ59: "Webmaster, If the translators made the error in good faith, can they be accused of faking? I was under the impression intent to deceive was required."

Uh, what is "good faith", as opposed to "bad faith", there MQ59. So, if a person arbitratily changes the words of the bible, during a translation, then they aren't necessarily held to the revelation standards of the bible literally speaking?

Revelation 22:19 - "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Somehow, MQ59, I would like to hear what you have to say from a "gods'" point of view, on how a person will be tried according to revelations. I mean, if a person, ignorantly changes the word, are they going to be held according to the biblical standard or not? If not, then how do you "know" this for sure? If you don't know the judgement of a god for sure, then, it appears your own "god", is setting the standard for absolute acts, with no compromise, not us.

Pointing this out, doesn't reflect my ambitions, it reflects the words you have attributed to a "god", and I have no problem pointing them out. So, lets turn the question around MQ, do you believe your god will fry a person for violating his laws, no "matter" the "intent"?

Steve said...

Ben
If I was "in it for the money" I would have chose to do something easier, and something that pays better.

Oh yeah, I noticed there is a VISA/MASTERCARD link on this site to help pay for it. HMMMMM.....

Someone also mentioned something about miracles. What, there are no miracles anymore? Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson was not God. Him saying there are no miracles anymore does not mean he is right. Tell that to a lady in the church I grew up in who contracted a disease where her flesh was being eaten by a virus. You could see the boils on her skin. She had this condition for months and it had taken away her ability to walk and function. I know this because my mom took care of her. She was told there was nothing that could be done.

I saw her husband wheel her into church Sundays. I know the countless hours and people who prayed for her. I saw this woman be prayed for, and I saw her jump up from her chair and RUN arond the church. Faking? C'mon-I know her. I saw her the next day when she came to our house to go with my mom to the clinic. Those boils she had before, they were gone. One of the doctors later became a Christian because of what He saw.

If there is no God, expalain that. You can't because science has not been able to explain away the occurance of miracles, although it acknowledges their existence. Logical proof for God's existence? There you go.

Many of you have cited works written by people who supposedly have proved God to not exist, Jesus deity is false, and the Bible is a hoax. Umm...Were these people there? Were they there 2000 years ago? Nope. If the Bible is all a hoax, and if Jesus really did not die on the cross and was not raised from the grave, then where are the writings from contemporaries to debunk this "myth." They definately had an interest in shutting up the early church. The early church was becoming a "problem" for the government. The government and religion was tied together and this radical new sect was causing them to loose power.

What you do have is a movement that was started by a bunch of people who were THERE when Jesus was crucified. The skeptics were not. The idea that the tomb was empty was probably some pretty fast-spreading news, if it was false then why did so many beleive? They would have seen it to be false. We know they beleived because the church is in existence today. The early church started in Jerusalem, the very area where Jesus was crucified. If it was all a myth, then why in the heck would they have accepted it? They were there! Not only that, they died for it. Why would they have done that? How could a group of cowards (the disciples) who were that way up until Jesus ascention suddenly get up the nerve to start a movement whose main figure died a very public death and was claimed to have risen from death if it had not happened?

Further, logic tells me (I can hear you all snear now when I say logic) if I had a leader who made all the claims Jesus did and then the leader failed, I would have chalked that up to a learning experience and gone on with my life. These guys did not. Was for fame or fortune? They saw an opportunity to get rich? These guys were beaten, put in jail, mocked, and ultimately died misrable deaths. If they saw it was a hoax then why did they do it? Christianity should have fizzled out. We have seen parellels of this in our culture with guys like David Koresh (sp?). As soon as it is found a hoax, all you hear about it is in the history books. People are no longer claiming David Koresh changed their life because he was found to be false.

So, where are the writings from contemporaries that this was a hoax? They don't exist. If it was all a hoax, they should exist.

My Two Cents said...

MQ59: "Two_Cents, Could you point out in more detail the parts on in the Answers-in-Genesis article you believe are dishonest?"

AIG: "Nowhere in these passages is there any suggestion that anything other than a real animal is being described."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/unicorn.asp

Half-truth. The people of that day believed the animals being described were "real", however, the site goes on to establish "what" animals were really considered "real", and they conveniently left out "unicorns", which were considered "real" at the time of the translation.

Also...

"So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible, translations are another thing again. The word used in the Hebrew is (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning."

Really, the word "re'em" has no such single horn connotation as that of a unicorn? Here is what Answers in Genesis poses immediately following that comment.

"Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox."

Okay, so far, this site, suggests that unicorns, do not have the same properties as re'em, however, we see clearly, that the re'em is described as having one horn.

MQ59, this means the internal information on this site, is conflicted. There are so many things wrong on this site, that outside of the internal conflicts, and I have seen a few, I find it funny that there is 'no' external corroboration, outside of "one" reference.

The re'em, mythologically speaking was an insurmountable, huge form, with no descriptive characteristics, which is why this site attempts to find a "real animal" connection, using a painting on a cave wall. Again, its a mythologically proven fact what the re'em characteristics were, however, when attributed to the bible, this site, because it doesn't want to associate mythology with the bible, they attempt to find a connection with a "rimu", because it can't be possible that a mythologically based society, which is a proven fact, had any influence on the biblical scritpure.

"In the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible..."

"So what was the animal described in the Bible as the ‘unicorn’? The most important point to remember is that while the Bible writers were inspired and infallible,"

You've got to be kidding, the entire bible is riddled with mythology, and contradictions from one era to another, from one religion (Jewish OT), to the Roman created NT. This site, is a self-authoritative source, for the "one" true bible (KJV), and its fantastic hypothesis', that only support their "real" animals. They might as well have written... "We will make sure, that whatever we say, we will not allow mythology to find its way into the "influence" of the bible, even if we have to formulate a lie".

My Two Cents said...

Steve: "Oh yeah, I noticed there is a VISA/MASTERCARD link on this site to help pay for it. HMMMMM....."

No one is going to hell for not paying there Steve, no fear to get someone to pay their tithe on the site logo. Perhaps, the site could make more money, if "fear" were used to make money. Kinda' like religions do, wouldn't you say.

My Two Cents said...

Steve: "If there is no God, expalain that. You can't because science has not been able to explain away the occurance of miracles, although it acknowledges their existence."

Miracle: "any amazing or wonderful occurrence"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Steve, that sounded amazing, and even wonderful. Still, amazing and wonderful things happen all the time in medicine. The medical practices of today, are "magical" and "wondrous" in relation to the past, especially the medieval days. The doctors of today, would be considered gods, a few hundred years ago. So, a woman who is cured, is definitely a wondrous thing, but, because the doctor you described didn't have an answer for the remission of whatever ailed her, doesn't prove your transcendent "god", exists.

It just proves that your doctor and you are ignorant, along with many other people to the natural world around them. If you want to start attributing miracles to your god, then you can start attributing disasters to your god as well, and all the child infant deaths, etc., etc. ad naseum.

You see Steve, you can't associate "wonderful" things to your god, and ignore the rest of reality, as if your god has no control, what about all the people who have "died" from that same virus. I know many people who have had wonderful and amazing recoveries, and yet, they weren't religious, nor religiously affiliated, care to explain the connection between your "god", and the non-religious "miracles"?

My Two Cents said...

Steve: "Many of you have cited works written by people who supposedly have proved God to not exist, Jesus deity is false, and the Bible is a hoax."

Actually, the Jews of the Old Testament didn't believe Jesus was a deity, and that he was a "hoax", hence, according to the Jesus Legend, they sent him to the Romans for blasphemy of their religion, where he was crucified. So, the Jews of the Old Testament, believed Jesus was a hoax, not me, why don't you go beat up some Jews because they crucified your beloved jesus.

The god of the Jews was "El", a bull-calf. The god of the New Testament christians was YHWH, not the same god, so, when you start speaking of, "we" don't accept your god as real, you need to tell me which of the two you are talking about, okay. And, while you are at it, why don't you tell us if Jesus is the same as god, because then I can determine which one of the thousands of christian demoninations you belong.

Steve: "Umm...Were these people there?"

Uh, yeah, they wrote the Old Testament, is that close enough? How about the ebionites, they also wrote of Jesus of that era, and they claimed that he was mortal. And, according to the gnostics, they believed he was more of an apparition. However, if you want more documentation on those who lived at that time, just let me know. There are the dead sea scrolls, coptic writings, to include many other details of a mortal Jesus. Of course, you knew about all of these writings, as I am sure, you aren't so ignorant that you would make such an assinine statement, right.

Steve: "Were they there 2000 years ago? Nope."

Yes, they were, retard. Read a few books, before you open your mouth and make yourself look more like an idiot.

Steve: "If the Bible is all a hoax, and if Jesus really did not die on the cross and was not raised from the grave, then where are the writings from contemporaries to debunk this "myth."

Contemporaries? The Jews, you know, the people who lived a few thousand years before Jesus, declared that he was not their "messiah", you know, those people. Contemporaries? You have got to be kidding. The Roman Emperor Constantine I, "forced" the Jews to accept the legend of Jesus. You do know how to read, right? If you want more dubunking, why don't you go ask a Muslim what they think about your legend of Jesus, as well, they tend to agree he was just a mortal as well, as a matter of fact, during the era jesus was supposed to have lived, there were "many" more people who believed in his mortality than his divinity.

Steve: "They definately had an interest in shutting up the early church. The early church was becoming a "problem" for the government. The government and religion was tied together and this radical new sect was causing them to loose power."

Are you daft? The early church was created by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, who formalized christianity as a state religion, in order for "anyone" to include the jews to fight against that state religion, was to fight against the Roman Empire. Ever hear of the crusades, etc, there was persecution from the very beginning. The Jews were there first, and disclaimed Jesus, they were murdered because they didn't believe his divinity, even at the hands of the Romans. Steve, the Jews to "this day" don't believe Jesus was divine, period. Have you even read the bible?

My Two Cents said...

Steve: "What you do have is a movement that was started by a bunch of people who were THERE when Jesus was crucified."

Wrong, the Jewish movement was already in play for a few thousand years, their movement came first. Then, Paul attempted to start a new movement to counter the jewish movement. While jesus was supposed to have lived, Paul didn't believe the christians, he was jailed for persecuting them himself much into his life. So, there was no, major christian movement going on, until Paul started preaching his own message, and hundreds of years later when Constantine I, legalized christianity as the state religion. If Constantine I, hadn't mandated christianity as the Roman Empires' religion, it would have fizzled out, early CE, as Judaism had no problem continuing to grow. It took the crusades and many battles, to kill off enough jews to keep christianity going... and, still to this day, the jews, don't agree with christianitys' claim that Jesus was their messiah.

Steve: "The skeptics were not."

Actually, there were Atheists long before, there were christians, you really need to read a book. And, there were many religious sects who were skeptics of jesus, who to this day remain skeptics.

Steve: "The idea that the tomb was empty was probably some pretty fast-spreading news, if it was false then why did so many beleive?"

The Jews didn't, the Ebionites didn't, the early gnostics didn't, how can I say this... uh, it wasn't fast spreading news to those who didn't believe jesus was the messiah in the first place. As a matter of fact, the New Testament wasn't even canonized until late 300CE.

Steve: "They would have seen it to be false."

Yes, and the Jews died because they refused to believe, and the Ebionited died off, because of persecution from Rome, and the gnostics, dwindled away due to religious warring. Roman's state religion was made to be the only safe religion, its why the religion survived.

Steve: "We know they beleived because the church is in existence today."

No, the church is in existence today, because there were millions murdered at the hands of the Roman Empire. And, christianity today, was not the christianity of yesterday. The Roman Catholics do "not" agree with protestants, or orthodox catholics for that matter on many issues. There is no survived christianity, because of belief. Christianity is fragmented within its own religious system because people don't believe the early Roman Churhc's position and methods for creating the New Testament.

Steve: "The early church started in Jerusalem, the very area where Jesus was crucified. If it was all a myth, then why in the heck would they have accepted it?"

Uh, believe it or not, and I have said this over and over. There were entire religious sects who "lived" in his area, that refused to believe he was a messiah, according to tradition. You've got to be kidding.

Steve: "They were there! Not only that, they died for it. Why would they have done that? How could a group of cowards (the disciples) who were that way up until Jesus ascention suddenly get up the nerve to start a movement whose main figure died a very public death and was claimed to have risen from death if it had not happened?"

Steve, when were the books of the bible written?

My Two Cents said...

Steve: "So, where are the writings from contemporaries that this was a hoax? They don't exist. If it was all a hoax, they should exist."

They do exist there Steve, read the Old Testament, and call a rabbinical Jew, and ask them if Jesus was their Messiah. According to the Old Testament, when their Messiah was to arrive, they were to inherit their New Kingdom, and the Jews don't believe they are currently living in paradise. Here, a link for you, on what those of Jesus' theoretical day were thinking. And, who still don't believe he fulfilled the prophesy as their messiah, according to the Old Testament requirements, listed on the sites' link.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-criteria.html

.:webmaster:. said...

"...if I had a leader who made all the claims Jesus did and then the leader failed, I would have chalked that up to a learning experience and gone on with my life. These guys did not."

Right now I'm thinking of Joseph Smith and one of the fastest growing religious movements on the planet—Mormonism.

Old Joe claimed a few miracles himself. I guess they were real. Why? Because people who knew him kept the religion going and even today people still believe his fantastic stories. Logic.

How about this logic: I know that my God exists because I prayed for someone and she was healed. I have no other explanation for the healing, therefore my God is real.

I wanted a certain job I thought I had no chance of getting. I fantasized about getting the job, and one day it happened! I have no other explanation for this remarkable occurrence, so I now know that I have ESP.

Logic: When something outside my normal experience happens, something I can't explain, then I'll assign a supernatural cause to it, and in so doing, prove that there are supernatural causes.

Logic.

Marty Mets said...

mq59:

Again, you've proven my point exactly and I don't even think you realize it! You are saying some translations say "slave" others say "servant" and you can't know which was the original wording. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT HAS DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My whole point I've made with you from the begining is that the "one true religion" has thousands of different denomonations and hundreds of different translations to accompany them. How can you figure out what is the Word of God, corruption of man,or mistranslation? YOU CAN'T.

And, just so you know, the original Greek used the word SLAVE, and it was changed to SERVANT in more modern times. You know, since we've decided that slavery is wrong and immoral. Humans apparently came to this conclusion without ONE WORD of support from the bible. Not ONE WORD in all of the OT or NT tells us that slavery (or rape for that matter) is wrong. A real moral book, my ass!

Please, before you come here telling us about mistranslations, study the bible for yourself so you know what your talking about. Thanks.

SpaceMonk said...

@Steve re. the Boil healings:
"If there is no God, expalain that. You can't because science has not been able to explain away the occurance of miracles, although it acknowledges their existence. Logical proof for God's existence? There you go."

Which science are you talking about?

Quantum physics is getting there, and this link below has a reasonable explanation for how consciousness creates reality, including miracle healings (it's a good introduction to the theory at least):
http://www.ianlawton.com/rsm/pap7.htm


@ MQ59:
"Spacemonk,
On the matter of the reincarnation system, I don't know either.

Happy?"

Very.
Your bible has finally failed you.
Am I the first one to make you admit your infinite supply of excuses is actually exhausted?

So, if you don't have a reasonable rebuttal against the theory of reincarnation why would you still feel compelled to worship a god that has settled for a lesser method?

Why continue to accept what you can't rationally justify?

It is obvious to anyone that the theory behind reincarnation is more merciful and just than an eternity of punishment in hell, but because you are limited by the bible you can’t allow yourself to come to such a common sense conclusion.

You have to say “I don’t know”, because the bible doesn’t allow for your natural logic.


& Re. Unicorns.
I once saw a documentary about ancient Egypt and how there was a certain species of deer or antelope type creature (which is extinct, or almost extinct nowadays) that has long and very straight antlers.
These antlers are 'mounted' very close together by nature and often grew very close in parallel with each other.

The Egyptians would bind these antlers together in such a way that they would twist around each other and eventually appear as a single corkscrew type horn - extremely similar to the most common depictions of unicorn horns in art.

It may not be what the bible is talking about, but the Israelites were in Egypt for a few hundred years...

Houndies said...

Hey, not long ago I was in your shoes, questioning what I had been brought up my whole life to believe was "the way". Welcome to reality my friend. Christianity is all about one thing...$$$$$. That's it. It's okay to let go and tread water for yourself. Do your homework, and you will find how easily Christianity is disproved and nothing more than bits and pieces of older religions put together. Good Lucl with your journey. Dont be scared just be good to your fellow man. :)

My Two Cents said...

http://www.unicornlady.net/christianity.html#David%20And%20The%20Unicorn

An Aurochs, Re'em, Rimu, etc., it really matters not. Bottom line, the "unicorn", has had a long history throughout christianity, and although, I could show through my own personal research the evolution of the word throughout the ages, the site listed, does a pretty good job.

As many people have stated, and as the site portrays, quite leniently and without malice, the legend of the unicorn may have started out as some "wild ox", or "rhino", or... fill in the blank... but in the end, the "unicorn" has been known as the symbol of christ, a symbol of magical power.

MQ59, "YOU", may not agree with the Unicorn as being magical, because you don't accept such faerie tales, and you may even rightly conclude that the Unicorn started from some "common" animal, and was embellished, over time, but, that makes the bible, unauthentic now doesn't it.

I believe that has been the point made by many, whether you agree with the interpretation or not, you are only "one" christian, in a sea of christians, who have their own druthers on what the "bible" really means, when it says "Unicorn". Hence, the bible should not be taken literally, else, people start playing with "unicorns".

I present the bible, literally, just as any fundamentalist would "demand", if one is okay with their bible being carved up, to make it make sense, then, don't call it a godly writing, call it a human edited rendition of some type of inspiration...

By the way...

"The Encyclopædia Britannica (1911) collects classical references to unicorns: the earliest description is from Ctesias, who described in Indica white wild asses, fleet of foot, having on the forehead a horn a cubit and a half in length, colored white, red and black; from the horn were made drinking cups which were a preventive of poisoning. Aristotle must be following Ctesias when he mentions two one-horned animals, the oryx, a kind of antelope, and the so-called "Indian ass" (in Historia animalis ii. I and De partibus animalium iii. 2)."

Aristotle: "Aristotle (384 – March 7, 322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Ctesias: "Ctesias of Cnidus was a Greek physician and historian, who flourished in the 5th century BC."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesias

Some of the greatest philosophers of all time, believed in magical unicorns there MQ, and well before many of the books of the bible were written. It makes sense, that the "Greeks", translated a word into what they "believed" was a likely representation, to a re'em - a "Unicorn". The bible made sense to the "greeks", so, what's the problem? Today, the bible is being rewritten to make sense to people who don't believe in Unicorns, what makes that any different? Nothing.

Bentley said...

Pastor Steve wrote:

Ben
If I was "in it for the money" I would have chose to do something easier, and something that pays better.

That statement just proves what a perpetual liar that you are!

Where else in the World can someone go to work one day a week, Sunday, and get up for one or two hours and are reading and repeating verses out of a book and pretending that God is speaking through them? How foolish???

For 52 times a year! and getting paid for it???? What Godly devotion???
What genuine loyalty to a friggin God you are Steve!!!

Oh it's such a back breaking job and all that praying you guys have to do!!! Oh Hell!!!

A decent days work would kill you! You cretin!!!


How much money was Jesus paid? $0

Did Jesus ask for money? No!

It's all about The Money Steve, to deny this proves that you are a phony and such a liar.

You've got the congregation fooled! and yourself fooled but you haven't fooled us yet Steve!

Then Steve posted this ignorant bullshit:

Oh yeah, I noticed there is a VISA/MASTERCARD link on this site to help pay for it. HMMMMM.....

Yeah well as MTC gracefully pointed out, there is no threat implied or guilt imposed as you have got up and made people that are on fixed incomes think they are buying their way into heaven and you've certainly told them no different!

Funny how you slithered around my comment, I said that if the money wasn't the main theme, you'd gladly give it all back! But it's all about the money isn't it Steve?

You slithering forked tongued weasel!

I despise all you phony charlatans!!!

You all should be shot, along with all politicians, that's basically what you are isn't it Steve?

You're a politician for your phoney fake God and yourself!!!

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of issues with Christianity stem from the fact that God became a human in Jesus and specifically a Hebrew.

The problem with any universal religion is the impersonal abstract god.

In Christianity you have the concept of a God who came to earth and then face the challenge of particularity.

Unfortunately for God to come to earth and dwell amongst us and become one of us God would have to become either a man or a woman and reside in a time and place.

You either get abstract, impersonal, universal and irrelevant or concrete, personal, particular with religions.

Anonymous said...

I am not a pastor although I am a Christian because of the fact that the time and emotional commitment is too great for me to consider doing with my 3 children. It is fair enough that Ex-Christians ask to be heard and treated with an open mind but to suggest REALLY that all Pastors do is preach for 2 hours on a Sunday and have a holiday for the balance of the week is a bit of a laugh.

boomSLANG said...

"I am not a pastor although I am a Christian because of the fact that the time and emotional commitment is too great for me to consider doing with my 3 children."


Whaaa?....you're a Christian, why?


BTW, most Christians have never even read their Holy book cover-to-cover. No, they rely on someone else...i.e..a "pastor" to tell them what it means. THAT'S the "laugh".

mq59 said...

Ben,

Calm down.

mq59 said...

Spacemonk has an interesting point re: the unicorns in question

mq59 said...

Houndies,

If "re'em" started out as "antelope" or "goat" but was mistranslated in the KJV, that does not make the Bible inauthentic. That means the KJV is flawed. The "introductions" of later editions of the Bible all state that the KJV contained a bunch of translation errors and so a new version had to be made.

Now, if the Bible contained a hideously major fact error that could NOT be explained away by translation, then you've got something.

Two_Cents,

My bad for not being clear. In your burning-forest metaphor, you made it sound like the spread of the fire was like the evolutionary process--the fire might die in one place and spread in others, depending on the local conditions.

My point is that the forest fire requires a forest and wind. The evolutionary process would produce life under the right conditions, but how do those conditions come about? How did the greater universe come about.

mq59 said...

My Two_Cents,

The God of the Jews was a bull-calf? That must've been news to Jews who read the book of Exodus where Moses smashes a bull-calf.

My Two Cents said...

Anonymous: "I think a lot of issues with Christianity stem from the fact that God became a human in Jesus and specifically a Hebrew."

I.e., if god were to have shown up in a neutral position regarding religion, he/she/it could have presented a more "universal" message, instead of one that would perceived as biased to a specific culture, etc.

Amazingly, I would agree. Therefore, it makes one wonder, why an omnipotent, and omniscient "god", would have chosen such a path, as that of jesus, which caused more hate and dissention amongst the religious ranks.

If someone gives their god credit for not being a total maroon, then they must conclude their god deliberately created chaos on purpose, that has resulted in millions of deaths due to religious hatred and bigotry.

Perhaps, it makes more sense, that the "Jews" were targeted as the threat of that era, as they were extremely exclusive, claiming to be the "only" chosen people a god could possibly love and care about. Paul, preached using the Jewish Tanakh, which is the exact book that came known as the Old Testament to christians.

He introduced the legend of Jesus, in sermons, and on the roads, with no evidence, other than a vision/dream he says he had of Jesus. Per the christian doctrine, he preached that the Jews no longer needed to listen to the Jewish law any longer, that Jesus had come and completed the Messianic Prophesies of the Jews, and a New Covenant was Testified/Testament was established by Jesus.

People asked when Jesus would return to fulfill Paul's divinely inspired message, and Paul replied... the end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34


Paul, attempted to proselytize the Jews to christianity, saying basically, that even though they were the "chosen people" who were promised "paradise" exclusively, that they would be provided the same paradise, if they followed his religious doctrine, and within their lifetime. Thus, even though the Jews weren't in paradise, they could rely on Paul's word, that if they blasphemed their "god", and sought Pauls' god, that they would receive their New Kingdom, and they could "trust" him.

Many Jews followed Paul, and waited for many years, but, eventually people died off, and no New Kingdom for the Jews as promised, thus, a little persecution of the christians, who were considered outright "liars", following Paul's obviously erroneous doctrine. The time line continues, and thus, other remarks are made to appease the Jews, and christians, so Pauline Christianity isn't considered a totally fraudulent belief system...

THe bible starts showing passages, like, the end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors. Stretching, the rewards of Heaven and the New Kingdom out longer over time...

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ... that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29

"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10

And, when that didn't happen, the "word" changed again, to appease and attempt and reconcile the previous baffoonery...

The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so.)

"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5

"For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." -- James 5:8

"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry." -- Hebrews 10:37


Two thosand years later, the Jews still believe Pauline Christianity is fraudulent, basically, the Gospels that make such idiotic claims, and the centerpiece Jesus who was Paul's "validation" piece. Its why the Jews neither accept the Gospels, nor Jesus as their mortal Messiah, as they would be living "today", in their promised land.

Constantine I, legalized and established christianity as the state religion, its why it survived, amidst the controversial claims of Paul, etc. There were many more people in that era, that believed Paul was a liar, and that his claim of Jesus was fraudulent, and thus, if a Jesus "did" live, he was obviously mortal, not a god, and definitely not their "mortal messiah", come to bring them into the promised land, as Paul promised.

Now, its quite obvious anyone who reads a little history, and places the biblical passages on their timeline, will actually see promises change, language evolve, and many other things, that can not be accepted if a bible was considered "infallible", as that means the bible, was perfect and unchanging, but its obvious that the books entered into the NT, presented many changes, etc.


Because of Pauls' claims, and based on his vision/dream of Jesus, and his "promises", that "never" occurred, only an honest person could claim that the "information" he proselytized with was "erroneous". "Could" Jesus have been a real life individual? Not in the manner Paul describes him. Could Jesus have been a "god"? Not in the manner Paul described him, and based on the failure of the prophesies, Paul stated were to come true through the death of Jesus.

Its more likely, that Jesus never lived in the framework Paul presents Jesus, and definitely not as a "god".

So...

Anonymous: "I think a lot of issues with Christianity stem from the fact that God became a human in Jesus and specifically a Hebrew."

Well, I think a lot of issues with Christianity stem from the fact that God "never" became a human in Jesus and specifically a Hebrew. Either the god described by Paul, can't be trusted, or Paul is a liar, either way, that invalidates the gospels, thus, no New Testament. If you drop the New Testament, you become a Jew who believes in the Old Testament, and some of the books of the New Testament. Orthodox Jews are not Christians.

Even, if one wants to start claiming themselves to be an orthodox Jew, I would have a few questions... like,

Everything died after the flood per Genesis...

Genesis 7:21-23 - "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

However, according to the Jewish tradition...

"During the flood that engulfed the world for 40 days and 40 nights, Noah took two of each animal to safety ; but Unicorns were not among them. A Jewish folk tale mentions they were originally on board but demanded so much space and attention that Noah banished them. They either drowned or managed to swim during the flood and still survive somewhere in the world or, as some believe, evolved into the narwhale."

If everything died in the flood, then, according to genesis, the re'em, were "dead". That's of course, according to the Jewish Tanakh, and Talmud, it appears they have some discrepancies, but, many Jews will immediately suggest that their writings are "not" literal, that many were symbolic stories told to present a moral or wisdom.

mq59 said...

Why are you attributing the Gospels to Paul?

He was obviously one of, if not the, most effective missionary in the early church, but to claim he wrote the gospels would either mean they were written down earlier than most believe (since they were written in a 70-150 AD range) or Paul was exceptionally long-lived. Perhaps abnormally so--say he was 50 when he died in 66 AD.

And did Paul write all the other NT books besides the epistles and (for the sake of the argument) all four gospels?

And here's some food for thought re: Paul.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

The premise that Paul is a false teacher is a bit too radical for me, but they've got lots of interesting ideas. And they put the kibosh on the idea that Paul is essential to Christianity-- the general core of Christianity is still there, even without the Epistles.

My Two Cents said...

MQ59: "Why are you attributing the Gospels to Paul?"

Uh, sorry if that is the message that was received, I do "not" attribute the gospels directly to Paul. I do, however, attribute early christianity and the spread of the "Jesus" legend directly to "Paul", and this, was eventually captured captured in the gospels. If Pauls' vision of a legendary Jesus, brought to him in a vision, was ignored... its quite possible, that the Jesus legend would not have grown as it did.

Would Constantine I, still have united the rivaling religious sects in his Roman Empire? Sure, but the Jesus element quite possibly would not have been part of the newly amalgamated religious order sanctioned by the Roman state as the "true" religion.

For instance...

3CE-67CE

"Saul, also known as Paul, Paulus, and Saint Paul the Apostle, (AD 3 – 67) is widely considered to be central to the early development and spread of Christianity, particularly westward from Judea. Many Christians view him as an important interpreter of the teachings of Jesus."

8-2BCE – 29-36CE

Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE– 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context, he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah".

Amazingly enough, Paul had visions of a Jesus, saw a light, and heard voices he claimed was a god speaking to him, but curiously, those around him, did not hear the same voices. Thus, Paul "never" met, Jesus, in the flesh, "Ever".

MQ59: "He was obviously one of, if not the, most effective missionary in the early church, but to claim he wrote the gospels would either mean they were written down earlier than most believe (since they were written in a 70-150 AD range) or Paul was exceptionally long-lived. Perhaps abnormally so--say he was 50 when he died in 66 AD."

Again, had not Paul had made the confession of Jesus, and proselytized, as a missionary, the cryptic snyoptics would not have been talking of Jesus - in my opinion. You're correct that Paul was dead, before the dates of the gospels, as accepted by many.

Again, might I point out, that Paul was making claims that Jesus would return to bring in the New Kingdom before his own death, and the death of the apostles. Thus, Paul dies, the apostles die, and no New Kingdom.

Thirty years later, the gospels begin to be written, well, after Pauls' death, according to accepted timelines. Notice, people were losing "faith", in Pauls' promises, over time, thus, all of a sudden, gospels start to be published - renewing the faith, by stating that Jesus as entertained by Paul was the true Jewish Messiah (but we both know the word messiah means mortal to the Jews, right), and come to save all humanity from original sin (even though we both know original sin is never stated anywhere in the bible, right).

What Paul started, was continued with the gospels. Pauls' epistles, as accepted by the majority of theologians;

Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, Philemon.

Potential Epistles Attributed to Paul;

Ephesians, Colossians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews.

The gospels were written later, and were written to close out the Old Testament, and to establish the New Covenant, however, we both know that the New Testament wasn't canonized until late 300CE, and after the first council of nicaea met to vote on the matter. Isn't it obvious, that Pauls' epistles/letters were placed in the New Testament, "after" the gospels! Why weren't the earliest epistles by Paul placed "first", as part of the New Testament? As you say, he was the earliest christian missionary, according to some christians.

I have an answer, even though the gospels were obviously written later on, they were written to establish Jesus' authenticity, hence, the most redundant books of the bible are the canonical gospels. The "faith" had to be restored, after the broken promises, of a New Kingdom, over and over to Pauline Christians.

So, according to the epistles associated with Paul, what do we get...

The end will come within the lifetime of the the New Testament authors.

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ... that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:7-8

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none." -- 1 Corinthians 7:29

"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -- 1 Thessalonians 4:17

"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. -- Philippians 1:10

"The Lord is at hand." -- Philippians 4:5

And, what do the gospels say...

The end will come within the lifetime of Jesus's listeners.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." -- Matthew16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." -- Luke 9:27

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." -- Matthew 24:34

"Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Matthew 26:64

"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." -- Mark 13:30

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." -- Luke 21:32

"Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" -- John 21:22


So, Paul, the earliest writings according to his vision of Jesus, declared that Jesus would return before the Apostles died, yet, his books were not placed at the beginning of the New Testament - even though Pauls' writings were in the era of said Jesus.

The gospels, declaring Jesus would return in the lifetime of Jesus' listeners, written much later, was placed at the beginning of the NT. Now, neither of Pauls' or the gospels writers' prophesies came to pass, unless we have apostles or people 2,000 years old running around, but, why place the gospels where they were placed?

To establish the legitimacy of Pauls' message, even though obviously erroneous, and to close out the OT, by showing how the birth of a Jesus, fulfilled the OT Messianic Prophesy, per Isaiah (but, we both know that Jesus didn't fulfill that prophesy, right). Paul, was not around when his "epistles" were used to create the NT. And, the authors of the gospels, are anonymous for the most part, and there is much speculation that the books were written in great part using the same source (still controversial, but so much redundancy, writing style, etc., one can see the pattern).

MQ59: "And did Paul write all the other NT books besides the epistles and (for the sake of the argument) all four gospels?"

Again, the gospels were written pretty much anonymously, and many books that are potentially attributed to Paul, are not necessarily Pauls' writings. I would suggest that "none" of the gospels were written by Paul - but, that's pure speculation, I wasn't there, but the dates sure don't match if they are dated correctly.

I think its interesting, that the christian tradition as taught over a few thousand years, has god and Jesus bringing in some infallible and error free word, yet, we have no writings from Jesus... Paul, has visions, hears voices, but, never actually physically meets Jesus... Then, we have gospels, which are predominately "anonymous", and speculated to be written from the same "source" for the most part. If the "word" was supposed to be sent from a perfect "god", one would think that the god", would have sent someone to publish the word themselves, to prevent human error, that "god", would have made sure there was no doubt as to the authorship of the books, and to ensure that the "words" in the bible, would be "relevant", for all time, and not just for a few years, like Pauls' statements about Jesus returning within peoples' lifetimes, etc.

MQ59: "And here's some food for thought re: Paul.

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/

MQ59: "The premise that Paul is a false teacher is a bit too radical for me, but they've got lots of interesting ideas. And they put the kibosh on the idea that Paul is essential to Christianity-- the general core of Christianity is still there, even without the Epistles."

That site promotes Jesus as the central core for christianity. That site, obviously doesn't realize that when Jesus was supposed to have lived, the only one running around talking about him, and recording Jesus' events, during that era was "Paul" himself, and... only Paul. Any other writings of that time, in my opinion, were counter writings to Pauls', and perhaps other statements regarding Jesus' divinity. Thus, if it "weren't" for Paul, the key figure for christianity in a general sense, would not exist. The writings of Paul, inspired the anonymous authors of the gospels, and led to Constantine I's creation of the Roman Church, hundreds of years later, and "amidst" much controversy, because "many" people when Jesus lived, and during the era the gospels were written, didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, less that a Jesus actually lived.

There is not "one" thing that can be corroborated about a Jesus, that Paul wrote about, using an external source, not "one". If one wants to be a legalist about such matters, one could say that the "message" as promoted from the figure Paul, was noteworthy, as he attempted to extinguish an "exclusive" religion, and establish a more Universal realigion, using Jesus as his mainstay.

Was Paul a false teacher... Literally speaking, "yes". In a more loosely philosophical sense, can it be said, that Paul had great initiative to bring an end to exclusive Judaism, and bigotry, but had terrible judgement in the method he used to accomplish such a feat, sure. Heck, the guy seemed to have tried everything, to remove an exclusive religion.

Now, I'll go out there on a limb, and state, that Paul was trying to remove an "absolutist" culture, by creating a more "universal" culture. However, his epistles, coupled with a Roman Emperors' approved letters, seemed to have just been used to re-establish yet another "absolutist" religion. So, what changed there MQ... The exclusive Judaism of the early CE era, became the exclusive christianity a few hundred years later.

That is a fact, that we are living with today. The absolutist christianity only lasted for about a thousand years, before it exploded once again, under the weight of someone screaming "absolutist", and power hungry religious dictators - thus the protestant religious were born.

In the end, its all about authority, and control. Paul had zero evidence for his actions, yet, he believed in universalism to a great extent. Today, preachers run around teaching their beliefs, with "zero" evidence either, but they do so many times, for their own benefit, not for the wholeness of humanity. Many preachers, preach exclusion, hatred and bigotry.

It really doesn't matter how much evidence someone brings to the table, I mean, Paul had "zero", yet, he still preached. Perhaps, its the "end result" of ones' preaching that really counts, you know, the fruits of the tree. I would suggest that christianity as a whole is not an inclusive religion, as much christian religious doctrine portrays women as second class citizens, gays as reprobates, crippled or mentally deficient people as being demon inhabited, etc., etc.

The only true way for Pauls' vision of true "acceptance" and universal salvation, to have been a success, would to have been to remove all of the OT prejudice, and... he couldn't do that, yes, he took the Jews' Tanakh, and used it to preach from using his own message, but he didn't have the gonads to rewrite the word, he would have been stoned, thus, he did what he could. The Roman Church didn't remove the prejudice either, they just refocused the religion towards a christian perspective, created a NT hell, and justified the use of religious priests to "absolve" people for their unavoidable "original sins", as we both know, never have been written in the bible anywhere.

Historically speaking, there MQ, Its pretty evident, how the bible was created, why it was created, and what use it is of today, for anyone who knows a little history. Its obviously not "infallible", or "error" free, as the Jewish OT, does "not" agree with the perspective of the authors of the NT. Unfortunately, in order for Constantine I, to unite his Empire, he needed to appeal to the Jews, thus, the OT remained.

The bible, has evolved from a Jewish Tanakh, to a christian Old Testament, to a christian OT & NT, and through many tranlations. The words have evolved in meaning over time, and translations have been made from languages that don't have direct equivalents. The bible continues to be revised to make sense.

As much as I can understand Pauls' intent, from the epistles attributed to him, and his unbridled enthusiasm to change things, I can not "rule out", him using a legend to accomplish his goals. You MQ, have said as much even on this thread. Some people will say whatever they must, in order to establish their belief. Pauls' belief, seemed to be, that everyone should be cared for equally, and thus, he bore a legend to establish the authenticity of his message, at least in my opinion.

What Paul attempted, wasn't original, he used a pattern that had been used for at least a few thousand years, taking one legend and creating a belief system around a keystone figure(s). The question there MQ, truly, is... did Pauls' ends, justify his means. That my friend, is an ethics question.

I don't know if Pauls' vision and need was more for his own benefit (however, I can send you a few Rabbi's names, and they'll tell you Paul took care of himself), or the benefit of humanity, and that would have to really be known, before I, or anyone else could speculate on his means, i.e., creating the Jesus legend, appointing himself numero uno apostle, stealing the Jewish Tanakh/Old Testament from the Jews, and then preaching counter to their Oral Traditions, etc. as being justified for the good of the whole of humanity.

Personally, if it was all about poor ol' Paul, I don't have a problem calling him a weasel for his actions, counter-manipulation to gain control of an exclusive religion just seems like using a negative against a negative to make a positive - two wrongs don't make a right.

Today, it would be the equivalent of a minority group using some type of manipulation, in order to compete with the majority of people on any issue. Instead of manipulation, I would suggest that portraying ones' side of the story openly is a much more productive measure, lying just doesn't seem to get one very far for long...

Lsettr said...

Paul,

Actually, my church told me that I would feel different inside and have a reason for going on through the inevitable attacks Satan would make upon my newly restored soul. Yeah...I believe that was it. SO I didn't leave the church because my goodie bag was not handed to me.

"He said to deny your whole life, take up your cross(be willing to die) and follow Him."

Yes, and organized religion is the complete opposite of this very quote. Look at them. They attend churches with rooves, comfortable padded seating, airconditioning, and you'd better be dressed in your finest. That is not denying anything. And according to the Bible, Jesus and his disciples were pagans (look up the historic background of the word!) in their time. The known and accepted religions didn't know what to think about a religion that taught people to refuse to contribute to the country's cause or celebrate national holidays with everyone else. Oh...wait...we as non-christians in the USA go through the same thing that Jesus and his followers would go through. We are more like Jesus than churchgoers.

You say that the inquisitions and the heretic excommunications were only proof that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and no proof against God or the Bible. You quote Peter. Well, actually, that idea of false prophets came from another source (see The Shepard), but I digress. The fact that the Original Church (not the Roman Catholic) was corrupt and angainst the teachings of Jesus is well known. We can conclude that it has nothing to do with God...but are you so certain of that? Did you ask God?

Deut 13:6-11
Deut 17:6.
Deut 20:13
Deut 21:20-21
Deut 22:5
Deut 22:13-21
Deut 24:4.
Exodus 21:29
Ex 9:12,10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8
Lev 11:10
Lev 26:29
1Cor 11:14
Isaiah 45:7
.
Now, you say that it does not prove God does not exist, it just proves I don't agree with God's actions. Well, I don't. But he does not agreee with himself either. Odd for an omnipotent being. Just a few of those listed go against his TOP TEN. Any logic scholar would conclude that if your God is omnipotent, he would not make goof-ups like that. Or perhaps those laws are for man to follow alone and it is God who has given us a sick game to play by allowing us free-will? No...that doesn't make sense either. Because if we had a choice in the matter, why would God put hate into the hearts of men to CAUSE something to happen? There went the free-will theory. Does it make him less real, no, but less credible and less worthy of my attention. I think you'll find those same things all over the site if you look more closely and with open eyes and heart, dearie. Onward...

"NOW THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH: BUT IF ANY MAN DRAW BACK, MY SOUL SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM. BUT WE ARE NOT OF THEM WHO DRAW BACK UNTO PERDITION: BUT OF THEM THAT BELIEVE TO THE SAVING OF THE SOUL."

I have honestly never drawn back from the spirituality I gained from opening my eyes after being saved. You see, that was what threw me off and throws most people off. I was never really lost after being saved. It was when I opened the door to my heart by being baptized as an adult that things began to click into place. I began studying the Bible I had defended and realized what a mess it was. I prayed and in return got a feeling of security in what I was doing. It was then that I realized I wasn't praying to anything outside of my own being. You have to label your own conscience GOD or JESUS. I just realized that we are all divine. Damn, boy...even your own religion says that the holy spirit resides in us all (through jesus..yadayada...). But it is within each and every one of us, Paul.

What am I saying? It was being saved that SAVED me from Christianity. Get a WOW outta that?

I know I did the right thing by breaking from the hypocritical notions presented in ANY organized religion. I did the right thing by understanding the Bible and the historic signifigance of it and this person/prophet/ mythical hero called Jesus of Nazerathe. It was not emotional, but logical. And yet...I made sure my heart was in agreeance with the move. So it was with "faith" and yet logic and I did not "draw back". Many people would say that agrees with this last Biblical quote you have used.

And I am...an exchristian.

In your next post you seem to have some things wrong. I see Geek got to you about those. Also: If a Jew submitted that he believed that jesus was indeed the messiah, he was no longer a Jew. He was a Christian. Most Jews did not believe this man was a messiah. But, what exactly does that have to do with your post topic, anyway?

Also, might I ask what led you into the fold?


Rachel

PS- the remarks you have made come off as condescending, despite the disclaimers...especially the ALLCAPS portion. You know, ALLCAPS is a form of yelling or pointing out something important, right? Maybe you should use your own advice and not get so emotional, dearie.

Sorry to have cut this short, but I ran out of time. Work is a bummer.

And loved that comment brigid, Patricia, bill, geek...so many more...lol.

Anonymous said...

Have many a debate with fundamentalist Christians about the nature of the bible ... your arguments regarding Jesus coming back within a generation are very similar to them in terms of the 'infallibility' and 'inerrancy' debates. However most Christians are happy to accept the divine-human nature of Jesus but then want to attribute Qu'ran like infallibility to the Bible. I have no problem with the Bible being 'incarnate' for the want of a better word. It was inspired but not dictated and it is culture bound.

In terms of the argument that God created chaos by placing Jesus within a culture and context.

Most of us can create enough chaos ourselves without feeling the need to attribute it to God - which I am sure is not really your argument as you don't believe in God - so therefore all the chaos that resulted from the fabrication of Jesus by Paul must be our own work right?

Therefore it is possible to me anyway that even if God did choose to take the form of a person that we could continue to cause chaos by rejecting him, killing him, and denying him ... then blaming him.

.:webmaster:. said...

To anony: ?

Jamie said...

Hey, I dont know how your feeling 76 comments later but i just want to say, i used to be more then a Christian in doubt, I used to be an agnostic, then an atheist, then i became a Christian after some experiences changed me into a Christian, and if you still have any hope of following Lord Jesus, Id be glad to share em with you, my email is jamiehoban@shaw.ca, i definately know what its like to be in your situation, (not you, but that situation of doubt) i visited my cousin in another province, and he tried to tell me about Jesus, i got so mad at him, that he gave up sin, i talked about it all the way home, about how brainwashed he was, then eventually some crazy things happened, and now i know with all my heart God exists, ive seen, within 2 weeks to a month, three years ago, i went from atheist to Christian from experiences in my life that told me my atheist beliefs were off, and ill gladly share, if your even still reading these comments lol,

much love

Jamie

Anonymous said...

You mean I am not the only doubting Christian out there? I am getting more frustrated day by day. I am honestly seeking answers and I am told to pray and read my bible.
I have an "unsaved" fiance and I am told I need to kick him out of my house because he is not a "believer" Yeah, that is a good Christian testimony. I'm a Christian now, get the hell out of my house. I thought God was suppose to be a God of love. Why am I finding Christianity to be a miserable experience.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Christian right now and I've had my doubts before about things that go on in the church. It's true that people that go to church are not perfect. What helped me when I was going through my most intense stretch of doubting (because I must admit I'm always in doubt about one thing or another within Christianity) was that I had to view the church as it truly is - a place where everyday people who are searching for the truth come to gather and acknowledge their Creator in the STATE THEY ARE IN. That means that all the sinners who no longer want to sin come and worship. Not one person is above any other. And even though some people may act that way, while others assume that everyone who they meet in church must be better than people who don't attend, it's just not true.

What I felt helped me personally was my acceptance that I was always going to doubt. And I don't think that doubting is bad at all. It means you have a brain to think things through, and the fact that you can see these incongruencies means that you are seeking to put 2 and 2 together to come up with the truth. In my opinion, and based on who I personally think God to be, this is what He wants - for believers in Him to seek the truth, not just accept what people tell them. ("'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD." Isaiah 1:18).

As someone who believes that the Bible is the true Word of God, I've found that studying it has truly helped. I can look things up about something if I am confused. I would recommend going to different Bible studies, and also attend different Christian denominations' study groups, see what different interpretations are circulating. I say attend Bible study groups because they tend to focus on one topic and search the Bible for what it has to say. I find that the focus is a better way to go about studying the Bible for me than randomly opening up to a verse or chapter and reading alone. It also helps to put the Bibe verses in the context of its time, which lends a greater inderstanding of what it has to say.

Moreover, whatever you choose to do, don't let people get to you. Church people = human beings. They err just like you and me. In the end, we'll all be judged according to what went on in our individual hearts, and not by how well our church held up to standards. Thank God.

Steve & Tracy said...

Amen!!! i am a believer myself, and i understand where u are coming from. I hate religious talk and gear but i love my saviour. I hate when people tell me what to do but i love when they weep when i weep and hurt when i hurt. That is exactly what the church has lost, they have lost their since of the meaning of the what church truely is. God intended the church to be a place a refuge not of harm, a place of love not of pointing fingers. To this i say my love for God and for what he stands for makes up for what his people have to say. to you i say try God and not "his people" and you be the judge of what is more promising.
Steve Servin

sin1timeone said...

HAHAHA this blog is badass i understand everryything ur saying

Archived Testimonial Pageviews this week: