Have I believed a lie?
sent in by Mark
Have I believed a lie for 20 years?
I’ve been debating with my Christian friends for months now, about the bucket-load of inconsistencies, contradictions and atrocities I continue to find when I read the bible. After 20 years as a Christian, I can’t pretend any longer and ignore all the stuff that I’m finding.
I’ve spent hours on apologetics websites, spent pounds on books. I’ve gone to my friends to find out how they dealt with all this stuff. What’s the answer I’ve been met with? “Ignore all the inconsistencies and believe anyway”.
WTF? I thought that Christianity trumpeted itself as the truth, as a belief system with weighty evidence. Yet no-one seems able to tell me why the bible disagrees with itself on literally dozens and dozens of instances. (E.g. Dt 24:16 & 2 Sam 12:14). I even posted a challenge on this website, twice, asking Christians to explain it all. Yet no-one could.
I’m getting really frustrated with the glassy-eyed responses I’m receiving from my friends, when they look at me as if I’m talking a foreign language. I feel like I want to shake them, to get them to see what’s in front of their eyes.
Last night, I showed them a whole bunch of old testament atrocities, and despite all the evidence they refused to call it genocide when God slaughters a whole race, yet they will condemn a human being for the slightest ‘sin’. It seems that God can be called ‘good’ no matter what evil he performs or allows, yet I am a filthy sinner just because of who I am.
I have explored my doubts with honesty and integrity and I feel like I’m on the verge of walking away because the evidence from the bible has come up short. However, I fear that if I do walk away, they’ll rationalise my decision by saying that ‘I left because I wanted to sin/be in the world’ or that ‘I left because someone offended me’. How do you get them to acknowledge the fact that you’re walking away because you explored the evidence and found it lacking?
Birmingham
England
Joined: 18
Left: 40
Was: Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Now: Seriously Doubting
Believed because: Thought it was the truth
Doubting because: Realised it isn't
Have I believed a lie for 20 years?
I’ve been debating with my Christian friends for months now, about the bucket-load of inconsistencies, contradictions and atrocities I continue to find when I read the bible. After 20 years as a Christian, I can’t pretend any longer and ignore all the stuff that I’m finding.
I’ve spent hours on apologetics websites, spent pounds on books. I’ve gone to my friends to find out how they dealt with all this stuff. What’s the answer I’ve been met with? “Ignore all the inconsistencies and believe anyway”.
WTF? I thought that Christianity trumpeted itself as the truth, as a belief system with weighty evidence. Yet no-one seems able to tell me why the bible disagrees with itself on literally dozens and dozens of instances. (E.g. Dt 24:16 & 2 Sam 12:14). I even posted a challenge on this website, twice, asking Christians to explain it all. Yet no-one could.
I’m getting really frustrated with the glassy-eyed responses I’m receiving from my friends, when they look at me as if I’m talking a foreign language. I feel like I want to shake them, to get them to see what’s in front of their eyes.
Last night, I showed them a whole bunch of old testament atrocities, and despite all the evidence they refused to call it genocide when God slaughters a whole race, yet they will condemn a human being for the slightest ‘sin’. It seems that God can be called ‘good’ no matter what evil he performs or allows, yet I am a filthy sinner just because of who I am.
I have explored my doubts with honesty and integrity and I feel like I’m on the verge of walking away because the evidence from the bible has come up short. However, I fear that if I do walk away, they’ll rationalise my decision by saying that ‘I left because I wanted to sin/be in the world’ or that ‘I left because someone offended me’. How do you get them to acknowledge the fact that you’re walking away because you explored the evidence and found it lacking?
Birmingham
England
Joined: 18
Left: 40
Was: Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Now: Seriously Doubting
Believed because: Thought it was the truth
Doubting because: Realised it isn't
Comments
Now that the Da Vinci Code is resulting in more questions, sources such as http://www.tombofjesus.com and archaeological interest will be presenting harder facts that believers with inquiring and honest minds will have to grapple with on top of the inconsistencies of their holy books.
To thine own self be true, I say. Once the door of questions is opened it tends to stay open. Don't be afraid, I say. What will really boggle their minds is when people around you start to realize that you are still 'you' despite your change of belief.
The world definitely needs people like you Mark. Thank you for sharing.
John
see:
http://travel.news.yahoo.com/b/rba_daily/rba_daily4337
Not unlike a child breaking away from parents, this discovery is somewhat as painful, but the freedom of adult and religious independence is attained.
A few years ago I too struggled with breaking away from the faith. Now after a few years, I can look back and know that the decision was worth it. It is unbeleivable how much I defended what I now know as pure mythology.
Some people say that we should not try to convince Christians to de-convert, but I am beginning to wonder if that is the best thing to do, maybe we should lead them out of the falsehoods.
Anyway, I wish you the best on your journey forward. Keep studying. Read some of Joseph Campbells works on Mythology, good stuff!
@ "People believe what and how they do for emotional reasons" - Far too often... but always? Across the board? Is this true in other areas besides religion too?
I still have hope that there are people who can put their emotions aside and analyze the facts when it comes to discussing important matters such as religion.
That's a very good question, and the sad fact is that you will probably not be able to get most believers to acknowledge that. There are too many ready answers built into Christian dogma that will allow them to demean you, while protecting their own views. But, that's not to say that ALL believers will react that way.
I will relate my personal experience with this, although it's not a close parallel with yours. In my case, I rejected Christianity as a child, and was essentially never in the position of having to "come out" to my family (who are all Christians of various denominations with differing strengths of conviction), because it was more or less common knowledge that I didn't buy into any of it. But, here is the part that is similar. I still needed to grapple with the negative stereotypes that each of them had concerning non-believers. I was shocked to discover (many years later) that most of them believed that atheists live only for the moment, and that disbelief was rooted in rebellion. Now, here's the really odd part. Nobody in my family thought of me this way. They all thought of me as a hard-working good and honest person, yet they KNEW I was an atheist! Nevertheless, this did not cause them to question their stereotype. Interesting, no?
At one point, not too long ago, I sat down with several of my fundamentalist family members, Bible open before us, and had a very very long and open discussion about our various beliefs. It was very civil, and several very interesting things came out. First, it became clear that there were at least three radically different interpretations of the Bible represented at that table, and that I was the only one who had actually READ the entire Bible! This was as much a surprise to me as it was to them. It was also clear that I had studied it's history in much greater depth than they had, and could cite scripture on a par with them. I explained the fallacies in all of the common "proofs" for the existence of god, and pointed out some of the ghastly violence in the Bible (which they were largely unaware of). As a result of all of that, at least one of my family members came to realize exactly what you asked about--that I had rejected Christianity by using my head, not because I wanted to rebel. However, I'm not sure that it made much of a dent in the thinking of the others.
The moral of the story is this: The Christian religion is a very powerful belief-system with many built-in safeguards against "outsiders". Even with substantial evidence patiently laid out before, some (indeed most) may still fail to see that you arrived at your views rationally. But, in my opinion, the best way to cope with that is to show them, day in and day out, that you live ethically, treat others well, and seek to be honest with yourself and others. If they choose to continue in their delusion, then that's their choice. There isn't much you can do about it.
Best of luck to you. I hope you continue on your road of questioning and truthfulness. In the end, I think the rewards far outweigh the disadvantages.
I don't think believing is just an emotional attachment thing. I am highly emotional but I am not a believer. Indeed, part of my leaving was the emotional turmoil I felt over the cruelty of biblegod. No, I don't think it's general emotions, but the specific emotion of fear that keeps people trapped within an outdated pagan religion. Just my two cents, anyway.
Let me start by stating that I am a Christian. And as much as I do not wish to see any leave the flock you must do what you feel is right. You can not base your decisions on what others will think, either in your current situation or any other situation that you may encounter. Now you have probably already done this but I suggest you seek The Lord’s advice on this. Don’t ask your Christian friend’s, don’t even talk to them for a while. Just seek the Lord.
Dave Poole
I rapidly (in a matter of a few weeks) came to the conclusion that God, Jesus, Satan, etc., were all one with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
In other words, a load of crap. (It got kinda interesting for a while when I announced my findings in Sunday School... I was never again too popular with that crowd.) I was, however, a minor celebrety: the Kid Who Told Off The Minister. My parents were mortified, but couldn't do anything: they were the ones who told me to discuss it with the Minister.
Good luck: being an atheist is so relaxing, and, besides, you have Sundays off.
Gee, a total implication the we, as former Christians, did not "seek the Lord", either at all...or the "right way". It really doesn't get much more rude than that, does it?
Related question for anybody: As temporal beings, what is a reasonable amount of time to sit back and WAIT for a reply from a being who is presumably "timeless" and "limitless", only to get zero in return? Just curious.
The belif that there is a GOD and that it controls the earth allows the believer to shirk their responsibilities. Poverty? God's will. War? The prelude to the apocalypse. Global Warming?...etc.
The refusal to grip reality may contain the seeds of our extinction as a species. De-programming the mindless believer is the responsibility of all. It is our brain that has catapulted our species to the top of the foodchain. We need to ensure our survival by revealing the proof (science) to all.
I said: "Now you have probably already done this but I suggest you seek The Lord’s advice on this."
I did not imply that you exchristians did not try. I said quite the opposite. Stop looking for reasons to get upset and indignant.
Dave Poole
Jesus christ, David, the Tax man can find us even when we're NOT "seeking" him....what's up with that? (rhetorical)
Santa poses a small threat, no presents! Easter Bunny poses small threat, no candy! Tooth Fairy poses small threat, no money! A nonbelief in these above, you soon realize you will survive, you will recover!
But!!! A nonbelief in God and the Bible and Jesus has never ending consequences, a threat of a eternal burning Hell! With no means of escape, but with an exception, depending on what you declare to believe, what you believe will define to God your intentional desire to believe.
So your belief is what is most important to this Heavenly God, it's what you are willing to give up and sacrifice starting with your freedom, your inherent common sense, your money, your time with your family, for an accepted place in the religious society to be as one of them.
So now, giving up the false belief, is to be cast off from them, and this makes the believers, look like the idiots that they really are and they are sitting there with rotten egg all over their face.
A belief carries mental no value, it carries fear with rules and rules applied with fear.
A belief serves no purpose to any God, it only serves man and his petty religious ideals.
Here in USA we've been showered with Jesus since the day we were born, we are drenched daily with religious propaganda, people are walking around in a sel-frighteous fog of Jesus.
Religions and beliefs offer escapism from reality.
Exactly... if you don't know what a perfect god would "do", because you are not perfect, or how to identify a "perfect" act by a "god", then its not really possible to "ever" know a "god", is it. If you say, a god still intervenes in our lives, but we just aren't able to discern his acts, then, at the same time, we can't distinguish his acts from any other gods acts, to include the devils'. Thus, either no gods exist (i.e., we can't perceive the acts, etc.), or, we can't distinguish between the acts of the many potential infinite gods that possibly exist, for the person who actually believes in supernatural gods.
Uh, and in the bible itself, the OT has the god El, and the NT has the god YHWH, and they are "not" the same god. In the NT, Satan is introduced, but he wasn't around in the OT. Also, if you want more gods explained, all you need do, is look in your bible, and see the many verses that declare there are "many" gods. The bible was highly influenced via greek mythology and the pantheon of gods.
What makes you think that they're two different gods?
"It is better to remain silent, and be thought of as a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Chinese Proverb
I used to BELIEVE my ex loved me, till she PROVED she did not by sleeping with my best friend.
Faith is proof of nothing. But we use science everyday, i.e. internet, automobiles, airplanes. Science is repeatable, reliable, whereas faith can never be better than hit and miss.
"The survival of our specicies may be at stake. The more that humanity realises that there is no god, the more the mentally unstable believers visiously defend their delusions, particularly the inevitability of the APOCOLYPSE! If the apocalypse is coming, why defend the earth from pollution and war?"
I too have run into the roadblock from friends, "Everyone can believe what they want." To which I have recently responded:
"So, it doesn't bother you that so many people out there believe in these fantasies as if they really happened? That fiction written so long ago is still affecting the lives of people today? Not to mention the fear that people have over a god who will punish them in the worst way if they don't love him unconditionally? Religion is a sort of mental disorder we should all be rid of, especially if we ever hope to evolve intellectually...We'll never grow-up as a species, if we still think demons and spirits are real."
So then, it's just a matter of deciding in what you're going to put your faith and why.
Can i get some of what you're smoking?
Turn your light switch on and off.
Science.
I just love how you ignorant christians love to equate science with religion! Both based on faith, what a joke!
I, personally, have faith in nothing. I trust in things and when that trust is broken, I no longer have trust in that which I had given.
If you are serious about going back to school "for something", might I suggest some science classes and how about philosophy of religion. But your brain might hurt and you will probably drop out again!
The properties of electricity have been well known since Edison invented the incandescent bulb in 1879, but people like you choose to stay in the dark ages. And, BTW, the idea that science requires "faith" is pretty damn assinine. Please get a clue, or at least half a clue, before bothering us with your moronic dribble.
Well, Christians, you heard it straight from the horse's mouth.
Uh, the "fact" that the Old Testament was written by the Jews, and their gods' name was "El".
"El is a northwest Semitic word and name translated into English as either 'god' or 'God' or left untranslated as El, depending on the context. El is used extensively in the Tanach(Old Testament) to refer to the God of Israel as well as heathen gods.
In the Levant as a whole, El or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures and the husband of the Goddess Asherah as attested in the tablets of Ugarit.
The word El was found at the top of a list of gods as the Ancient of Gods or the Father of all Gods, in the ruins of the Royal Library of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yaw and Mot, each of whom has similar attributes to the Greco-Roman gods Zeus, Ophion and Thanatos respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29
If you don't like wikipedia, I can refer you to some other research material.
"Research in comparative mythology shows a linguistic correlation between Levantine Yaw and monotheistic Yahweh, suggesting that the god may in some manner be the predecessor in the sense of an evolving religion of Yahweh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_%28god%29
El, or Il, per the previous research shows that this God, fathered "Yaw"... Yaw, became known through comparative research, as Yahweh. Therefore, either "father" El/Il was killed off, and Yahweh was made supreme god per early theologians, or El just allowed his youngster to take over the family business, and they are both currently throwing back a few suds in the cosmos together.
I'm sure an ignorant person, without reading anything to do with comparitive religion or mythology, would just "assume" that El and Yahweh are the exact same. Well, because they haven't researched history in any capacity, obviously El, was around much earlier than Yahweh, and El, was worshipped by those who lived in the Northern Judeah region. Over time, Yahweh became popular in the Southern Judean region, and overtook El, as being the supreme creator. And, well, then there was Paul, siding with Southern Judean belief, and attempting to get "all" Jews to believe the Old Testament laws (and El), were no longer necessary, that some guy, named Hey-Zeus/Jesus, fulfilled all of their messianic prophesies, and they just missed it all.
Constantine I, got a council together to vote on Paul's claims, of a Jesus and his nature, hundreds of years after the fact, and they non-unanimously agreed that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies and that Jeus was a "god" of sorts, and that the Jews are now living in their new kingdom (well, of course the Jews didn't see Hitler as part of their vacation package in paradise, but, christians still claim the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled through Jesus).
Then, after Constantine I, legalized christianity, he forced it on the Roman Empire by law, decreeing those who didn't abide by the "state" sponsored religion were to be executed. It was around 367CE that the New Testament was canonized, by those who voted on this Roman council, and they placed only the books in the NT that supported their vote, to include, removing El in the capacity of the earlier supreme deity of the Jews.
Phil, don't you ever wonder why the Jews don't accept the gospels? Jesus, to them, was nothing but a catalyst for Paul and Constantine I, to rid themselves of an exclusive religion that caused much controversy. The Jews were at war, since the beginning, and they are still at it. Even creating an entirely new "god", didn't work, the Jews are still in love with their "El", and don't believe Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, thus YHWH, is a non-factor.
Now, that being said, there are some modern "mesianic Jews", and even a lot of christians, who have no clue about the authors of the OT or NT, and their extremely divergent views.
To this day, Rabbinical/Orhtodox Jews, do "not" believe Jesus was their messiah, as they would be living in their new kingdom, and they do "not" believe christianity, based on the gospels is the "true" religion, and "their religious elders" were the "authors" of the Tanakh/Old Testament. Yeah, not much has changed since ancient Rome, just the fact that the jews are spread out all over the world instead of being centered in the Levant area.
Pauline Christians claim, otherwise, that "everyone" gets the chance to receive the "new kingdom", and not just the Orthodox Jews, of course, based on the "gospels", which were written after a lot of voting, and discussion amongst the people who were "not" the chosen ones per the jews. Yep, the religious leaders selected by Constantine I, rewrote the requirements to be saved, etc., etc, and deliberately entered anonymous writings into the New Testament canon, to "contradict" the jews.
Ever wonder, why there is so much contradiction between the New Testament and the Old Testament? There's your sign - it wasn't an accident. The Romans wanted to knock off the jewish belief system, and draw them towards Roman christianity, now, Roman Catholicism. Well, there you have it Phil, the truth, archeologically speaking, and, if you throw in mythology in with the agenda of the Roman Empire, to unite all rivaling religious sects, the bible actually makes sense.
I like reading about unicorns, satyrs, dragons, arrowsnakes, fiery chariots racing in the heavens, storm gods with lightening, magic lanterns used to separate the waters on multiple occasions, a magic staff used to split the sea for an escape, a boat that holds two of "every" animal on the earth, etc., etc. Great stuff, if one relizes the bible for what it is - literature, that reflects the beliefs of the people of that era, over a two thousand year period. If you want, I an paste passage after passage of where there is reference of "multiple" gods as well, as greek mythology, and the pantheon had its impact on the anonymous writers of the Old Testament as well.
Its not science, moron, its naure, consider humanity part of that nature, and it all seems to make sense, doesn't it. However, I suppose you could suggest there is a supernatural reason electrons accumulate in the fashion they do, please, indulge us with your insights. Science is hardly perfect, in a unified sense, and the bounds of the language used to express such observations are limited, but, they are a heck of a lot better than guessing why electrons gather together to produce a charge, perhaps you'd suggest they are cold, and feeling lonely?
To a certain degree you are correct in your post. However, "faith", is not the same thing as "confidence", and that is the difference. Just so its understood that I am not positing an axiom on absolute terms, as that is absurd, let me just state that on a broad spectrum, I see two ends of reality. One end, is purely Natural in property (whatever one wants to define as the property of nature), and on the other extreme, is the purely Supernatural. Between these two extremes, reality can be postulated in varying degrees.
Now, faith is a loose term, so, lets define.
Faith:
-Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
-Complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
-Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
-Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Now, I can say, I have complete "trust" in myself, as can be derived by the second definition, however... that is a far cry different than the definitions of one and three. Phil, "you", fall under the definitions of one and three, based upon your belief in the supernatural. I, could accept either two or four, without the hint of a sepernatural deity.
The object of our "faith" is different, as you said. However, its not only the "object" of our "faith", its the "context" in which the word is used.
Phil, many religious people are deceived, and literally use words to reinforce their beliefs. A religious person hears that everyone has faith, and all of a sudden, they feel better about themselves, because they are just like everyone else. They ignore or disregard the fact, that "faith" has multiple meanings, and they choose to accept the definition they want to hear.
I don't support mis-communication so someone can feel all snuggly about themselves.
I am "confident" in myself first, followed by belief (based in this natural existence)...
You, have "faith", in someone/something else "first", followed by your sinful self - that's the truth, and it should be conveyed in that manner.
The object of faith, the context its used, and the further underlying implications of that one word, make this word almost useless in casual conversation unless both parties are of the same mind set. Here on this site, we don't see eye to eye, on the definition, the context, or the underlying implications of the word as it applies to our belief systems. Thus, it appears deceiving to use such a word, as if it means the same thing to everyone - its a sly way to "generalize" people, using a "word", that carries multiple meanings - that's fallacious.
My story is very similar to yours. (testimony in Dec 05) I am also in the UK and have been "in" for 22 years and much of my family and friends would be deeply shocked by where my views have got to.
I got some good advice on this site which was to take it slow and gradually introduce people to where you are at. Its been good advice for me.
I wish you well with your journey.
Thomas
True, Christianity involves faith -- but not blind faith. There IS substantial evidence.
Apologists, listen up: The Atheist worldview is one of *neutrality*. When/if the stool breaks?...then you don't trust that particular stool anymore. It's that f%cking simple. Furthermore, relying on a piece of wood to support your ass while you sit at your PC, and calling that reliance "faith", is to play the semantics game. The same goes for "truth", and "Truth". All religious belief is subjective; there IS no "Truth"(with an upper case "T"). This is obvious when we look around and see a bazillion different religious denominations and sects ALL claiming to have the one "Truth".
Science shows us "truth" only as far as what is testable AND falsifiable. The only absolute "truth"(with a lower case "t") is change within the universe. Science realizes this and applies it. Conversely, religious belief is a conviction..i.e...NOT subject to "change". To anyone with a functioning brain, this much ALONE, is CLEARLY a contradiction.
Ergo, to have faith in a God who gives no reliable evidence is the same as expecting snow to fall from your dining room chandelier.
I really appreciate your honest and diligent approach to this, and I feel for you. You obviously need serious discussion partners that are willing to ask hard questions and are not afraid to doubt. Thankfully, it doesn't sound like you're about to take your friends up on their suggestion to ignore the inconsistencies and believe anyway. That way madness lies. Anything True is not about to be discredited by the integrity you're showing.
With respect to the contradiction you mention...
Deuteronomy is essentially a "clarification" of the covenant of Mt. Sinai. As part of the clarification, the writer indicates (what is believed to be Moses' understanding) that if people are put to death, it should be in retribution for their own crimes.
Samuel is essentially a storybook, purportedly historical. In 2 Sam, Nathan is telling David that his son will die (by an act of God) because of the wrong that David has done. Sure enough, seven days later, the child dies.
Two things:
1. this is technically not a contradiction.
2. it might as well be
Why is it not a contradiction?
Because a covenant is a specific kind of agreement of the form "If you...then I..." It's basically a contract, where each party has a role to play. The covenant between God and Israel is "signed" in Exodus 24. Israel has a host of laws to obey. God has promises to fulfil. In Deuteronomy, the verse you mention is one of many clarifications: the people are not to kill children for the wrongs of adults. God's role is pretty much to provide the Israelites with land. Technically, there's no contradiction.
BUT...
It might as well be, right? I mean, what kind of God would do that? What kind of God wouldn't live up to the expectation (s)he puts on people? What kind of God engages in genocide? Infanticide? That's a tough question to answer credibly if you believe (a) that God is Good, and either (b) that the Bible is the divinely inspired, breathed Word of God or (c) that the people who wrote either Deuteronomy or Samuel (or Genesis, or Exodus, or...) really understood God.
The Bible is a good read, but since it was written so long ago, it's really really hard to understand. It requires research, historical criticism, contextual knowledge. Honest theologians and Biblical scholars continually revise their understandings of God and scripture when confronted by archaeological evidence. Likely, the average "level of understanding" of things scriptural is higher on this site than in most churches, and quite possibly, in most pastors. Sad, really...for the Christian church, anyway.
...regardless, my guess is that if someone were to understand the Bible fully within its context, they would still find "contradictions", but the contradictions would be understandable within the context of human experience...exactly like this website and the postings on it.
You sound serious about your quest for clarity and understanding. I guess my advice would be this: whatever you do, don't do it out of fear.
Maybe think of it this way...
If God is, then God had better be synonymous with love/good/truth/shalom/etc. If not, then is there a really point in devoting your life to Her/Him/It? Clearly, that's your question to answer, but since fear is oppositional to the
"God ethos", it's a poor choice for a motivator (assuming you're trying to stay within the "God ethos").
...and as for Jesus...real or mythical, messiah, prophet, rabbi, zealot, whatever...you're not going to find conclusive evidence to tell you what he was, and it's unlikely that you or anyone else ever will. What you decide to believe and what you decide to call yourself (if you decide to call yourself anything but Mark) is up to you.
Peace,
nokes
...by the way, in addition to this forum, you might want to also consider looking among some non-fundamentalist Christians for discussion partners. I've met people from the Catholic Worker Movement, some Quakers, Mennonites, Lutherans, etc. with whom I've had quite honest, hard discussions that were much less frustrating than those you describe...
Am i talking about christians or athiest/ex-christians?
Yes, passing off coersive and conditional love as real, authentic love, IS definitely "pitiful".
"relativist nonsense...."
Yes, talking snakes, fiery chariots, swimming hammers, and flying ghosts is certainly "nonsense"---and it relative to nothing in reality.
"limited to what you want to believe..."
God: If you believe ONLY what I want you to believe, I'll reward you with an eternal existance of serenity where you won't have a care in the world. If you don't believe what I want you to believe?... I'll roast you in eternal hellfire."
Seems like that's a good reason to "want to believe"---and call me crazy, but it seems just slightly "limited", oui? lol!
"or what you think you know."
The Atheist/Agnostic position is one of neutrality...i.e. waiting on objective evidence. The religionist postion is one of conviction---100%unfalsifiable.
Gee, who acts like they "know" something?
"You focus on yourself- SELF -the root of all that is wrong in this world and the root of all evil."
Atheist/Humanist: Doing what is right for all of humanity, even while knowing that when your time is up?...it's the end of your "self".
Religionist: Doing what is right for your God, including going to war with people who hold opposing beliefs, all because you have been promised that your life will never really end, and you can live happily ever after in the clouds in exchange for your belief.
Let's see, now......."SELF" ?
"Am i talking about christians or atheist/ex-christians?"
Hmmmm, you must be talking about christians....::wink::
Am i talking about christians or athiest/ex-christians?"
I'm not actually clear who you're talking about, nor who you're talking to, but it doesn't matter all that much, I suppose. It's Mark's post, and I'm pretty sure you weren't talking to him. Nevertheless, since you commented after me, and I'm curious, I'll ask...was that directed at me?
peace,
nokes
Republican party is the party of evil. You cannot serve two masters.
Yes, we "believed a lie"...it's called Christianity. And you can study a lie for as long as you'd like, it's still a lie.
Anonymous/Mary: "If you dont REALLY know what happened in the beginning you wont know what will happen in the end."
The hosts of "Shepherd's Chapel" weren't there in the beginning, were they? No, nor were the redactors of the "holy bible". Yet, we are to believe that this document, the "Bible", was inspired by a "perfect" being, but now we're being told that we need "companion books" and to watch some red-neck and his father on TV so they can "tell us" what the bible "actually means", because it wasn't written in a way that generation, after generation, after generation, etc, etc, etc, can understand it.
' Seems God should steer away from subcontractors the next time he has a "plan".