Still a Christian - ask me questions/tell me about yourselves

[Neo-Scholastic]

Or anxiety free bible, as in those palm-sized Gideon NT rolling papers they hand out on college campuses. Ironically mine had a green cover.

[Edwardo Piet]

At least this fucker has an epic username. This album by Speedy J rocks so fucking hard:

[speedyj1992]

You guys have the best screennames - I honestly should re-watch "Scrubs" at some point. There are a couple of reasons I'm here - first, I want to help people come to Christ, because having been on both sides, I can say this is the less miserable one. It's not always sunshine and rainbows, but the tough times are less tough, and there's way more direction. I understand not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay - but my other reason is I want greater humanization in the world, because that's a huge problem. People are so quick to dismiss others because they are different for whatever reason, and yet most of us would get along a whole lot more if we put aside our biases and just listened.

Just curious if you are as motivated to help people avoid eating dishes you can't stomach?  Do you always assume that what suits you will suit others?  Just because you've decided to live the xtian fantasy and like it says nothing about how it would suit me.  Of course, from within that fantasy which it doesn't suit me to join you in, anyone who doesn't join you is in for one hell of a bad time.  Bt hey, it was your decision to enter into that fantasy; if you're uncomfortable with your new beliefs why don't you consider doing something about it - something that doesn't annoy me.

I can't say for certain that you will be open to what I have to say, but I can say that, during my atheist period, it was more about rejecting a dogma than accepting a different one. Other former atheists will say similar things, and since I can't know whether you are in a similar place or not, whether or not you would be willing to hear more about what's actually in the Bible (the misconceptions are astounding, actually), I just want to provide a new viewpoint. I am fine listening to alternative perspectives and engaging in discussions about that, as nothing about my "new" (if you would call the last quarter of my life "new") beliefs is anything I am uncomfortable with. 

And if this annoys you, feel free to unfollow and stay in your comfort zone. But the fact that you went out of your way to respond, that you're on these boards in the first place, tells me that you have emotion around this, and if you truly didn't care, then you wouldn't respond. The fact you're reading this tells me that part of you is invested, even if negatively so, and I'd love to know some of your reasoning behind that.

---

Hey all,

I'm a Christian, actually, still - well, I wasn't always. I'm a former atheist, and having now been on both sides, I can say I like this one a whole lot more. So, mine is more of a re-conversion story, in a sense, as a former Christian Scientist (blech) who became atheist and is now Christian. Go ahead, ask me questions and tell me about yourselves!

Do you live as Jesus told you to live?

As best I can - it's not always easy, but it's worth it. What more would you like to know about that? I ask because there's a lot that Jesus talked about in living for Him.

[JackRussell]

How do you know what Jesus actually said?

[speedyj1992]

At least this fucker has an epic username. This album by Speedy J rocks so fucking hard:

Would you believe me if I told you I'd never heard of this guy? I'm going to give this a listen tonight, though, thanks for showing me this.

---

I want to help people come to Christ

I can't come I'm afraid. I'm anorgasmic.

I think you know what I was trying to say, but okay, I'll keep in mind my phrasing (pardon the "Archer" reference) for future reference. That was somewhat funny, actually, even though I technically shouldn't find it funny.

How is "I want to help people be more open to faith in Christ, whether that's believing themselves or being more tolerant of those who do believe"?

---

There are a couple of reasons I'm here - first, I want to help people come to Christ, because having been on both sides, I can say this is the less miserable one. It's not always sunshine and rainbows, but the tough times are less tough, and there's way more direction.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you won't help people "come to Christ" here.

Regarding what you said and what chimp3 got at, have you guys ever heard of "bridge theory"? It's the idea that God is infinitely good, so sin is infinitely bad, and that, to reconcile the broken relationship between God and man (since the Jews couldn't keep the covenant God gave them), something infinite needed to happen to replace all the finite works (which is all we as people are capable of) of the covenant of the Old Testament (which goes waay beyond the 10 Commandments). All the animal sacrifices given by the people were flawed and never kept, so something perfect needed to be given to reconcile all the sin for all time, and that was Jesus' sinless life. 

God didn't allow Jesus to sin so we could have relationship with Him, to answer that question, and to answer the next, we should expect everything from Him BECAUSE He did that. We couldn't atone for ourselves, so Jesus did, and that is an act of extreme sacrificial love such as has never been seen in literature or other religions or in the real world, because sin is infinitely bad in the eyes of God, and yet He sacrificed Jesus for us despite how bad sin mars us in His eyes. And yet we have a hard time seeing people who we disagree with in a loving way (yes, I struggle with that, too).

You know it's not true when you make up a reason for the made up thing. It's one of the ways to spot a con artist - if they try to sell you a solution to a problem only they know exists, then the problem is not real... and the solution is snake oil.

Define sin without referring to a god.

This is hardly enough space (and I have hardly enough time) to get into all of it. BUT I'll start off with this:

There is extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus' existence (look up the historian "Josephus", he is I think the main historian who wrote about Jesus, besides Luke, who wrote one of the gospels)

Josephus only ever mentions Christians. It's as if the myth was already existing... As if it didn't really originate on 33ad, nor 60ad.... but 100~200bc... and only got renamed... hmmm, kinda around the time of the Teacher of Righteousness... and a very similar message.

All 12 of Jesus' disciples (13 if you include Judas) were real people, and all of them died under execution, proclaiming Christ to their deaths (minus John, who died in exile), which Jesus actually told them would happen to them (not "You are all going to die for my sake", but He said "In the world you will have tribulation", among other references)

A Teacher and his disciples.... interesting...

There is an extreme LACK of "alternative events" of the NT, and there are actually over 25k manuscripts of the gospels, which is more copies than "The Iliad" and the works of the ancient Greek philosphers, and with greater consistency

How about all the gospels that didn't make the cut?
Many more than the ones that actually made it to the NT.
Aren't those representative of such "alternative events"?

There's a book detailing some of them called "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman. It would do you good do educate yourself before perpetuating false news.

The book of Acts, which follows the Gospels and proceeds Paul's letters, was considered a historical record

Perhaps parts of it, yes.
But the whole thing?? I'd take extreme caution with such blanket statements.

There are the occasional scientific and historical predictions in the NT (there's more in the OT, and I would encourage you to Google these yourself), BUT the most interesting is that it predicts that Christianity will be a big trend and many will come to believe (that's more in Revelation)

Was that the part written after Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire?

The major religions you hear of with other people who headed them, Islam, Buddhism, and Hindu (those are the main ones that come to mind) all have the graves of their respective leaders available. Considering the extreme impact of Christianity on our world and culture, and I know this isn't evidence so much as just interesting and powerful, it's worth noting that Christ's grave and body are nowhere to be found

Could it be that the man was never a real man, but a mythological figure?
Could it be that the real man behind the myth lived well before the events portrayed?
Could there have been various real men, whose stories got cobbled together into a single person, with some extra magical glue to account for the extraordinary miracles?

Pontius Pilate (who put Jesus to death) was a real person, the Roman government was indeed an occupying force in the Jewish nation at the time, and there was a significant movement around the time of Jesus' precahing that's never really stopped, even if it's at times slowed, changed, or taken steps in wrong directions

Yes, a real person that held that real position... not exactly when the book claims... by quite a few years.


And New York exists for real, hence Spiderman stories must also be real, huh?

You've clearly put a lot of thought into your replies to various comments, so allow me to do some of the same (I won't address every single thing):

First, you can't know other people and where they are at all the time, least of all over a forum. Whether or not someone comes to Christ is very hard to predict, and can take years in some cases, in which I may only play a very small role, which I'm very okay with. 

Second, I didn't invent Christianity, obviously - as a religion, it exists to worship God, who didn't create sin, we did. I would define sin as all forms of evil, at all levels, within our existence and world, that we are all guilty of. Of course, we can't know what is considered sin without God, but that's not part of the definition I gave. 

And actually Josephus does mention Jesus, so ... 

I assume the "gospels that didn't make the cut" refers to ones that were clearly contradictory and inconsistent, both internally and in comparison with the others (aka Thomas' and Judas'). That's literally why they're not in the Bible canon.

And Revelation was written somewhere between the year 70-85 whereas Christianity was officially adopted past the year 300 (I looked it up, honestly was surprised it took so long). 

In THEORY, we could be talking about more than one man or what you described, but it's highly unlikely. Honestly it takes more faith to believe that His closest disciples all lied about who He was to their deaths for something they didn't believe in and were able to write that consistent of a character considering their lack of educations. There are some educated screenwriters today can hardly write a consistent character, it seems. 

And lastly, there's basis in reality for Spidey, but we're talking about a work that was presented as intentional fiction to get across a point. The Bible is presented as reality, so your comparison works only up to that point.

---

1963/1964 you say - how old are you, if I may ask? And how old were you when you read the Bible?

I just turned 60.  I learned to read at 2½, read the Bible when I was about 6 or 7, and occasionally re-read bits of it.

Also, the water cycle wasn't discovered until the 1800s, and while it was theorized a couple hundred years before that by the Chinese, those particular scriptures are fairly specific.

I still think that believers are reinterpreting scripture specifically for the purpose of being able to point and say "Look!  This is about the water cycle!"  There's rather a lot that the Bible got wrong, such as the number of legs on an insect and the value of pi (being out by nearly 5%, when neighbouring lands had a much closer approximation, doesn't suggest a god with scientific knowledge.)

First, I would encourage you to read the water cycle verses - Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10, Amos 9:6, Jeremiah 10:13, and Job 36:27-28. Regarding your insect and pi references, what verses are you referring to? I'm also unclear about your last comment in the parentheses, but I'd gladly respond with some clarification.

[Whateverist]

Just curious if you are as motivated to help people avoid eating dishes you can't stomach?  Do you always assume that what suits you will suit others?  Just because you've decided to live the xtian fantasy and like it says nothing about how it would suit me.  Of course, from within that fantasy which it doesn't suit me to join you in, anyone who doesn't join you is in for one hell of a bad time.  Bt hey, it was your decision to enter into that fantasy; if you're uncomfortable with your new beliefs why don't you consider doing something about it - something that doesn't annoy me.

I can't say for certain that you will be open to what I have to say, but I can say that, during my atheist period, it was more about rejecting a dogma than accepting a different one.

With you so far.  In becoming what is called an atheist all I've done is reject xtian dogma.  

I'm wondering if you're defining atheist in the archaic "believes god does not exist" sense rather than the more modern "lacks belief in gods" sense.  I have no beliefs in relation to gods -including their non-existence- as I don't understand what it is "gods" even refers to.  Listening to those who say they do believe in gods I find little agreement, even just among xtians.  If you are laboring under the assumption that I've traded god belief for the positive belief that something believers assert cannot be detected in any objectively verifiable sense, then you would be mistaken.  However I do reject as nonexistent anything said to be 'supernatural'.  I do categorically reject any such thing until such time as anyone can produce even one unambiguous example of such a thing.  (Eyewitness reports are of no interest to me.)

Other former atheists will say similar things, and since I can't know whether you are in a similar place or not, whether or not you would be willing to hear more about what's actually in the Bible (the misconceptions are astounding, actually), I just want to provide a new viewpoint. I am fine listening to alternative perspectives and engaging in discussions about that, as nothing about my "new" (if you would call the last quarter of my life "new") beliefs is anything I am uncomfortable with.

And I am happy to discuss a wide variety of topics but have no interest at all in the bible.  Never read it though I've heard some quotes taken from it.  Even if I was open to the supernatural category I would still reject any notion that a god has sent me an important and urgent message by way of such a hodgepodge of a book.

Something I also reject as highly unlikely is the notion of an afterlife.  Life is finite and there is no continuation when it is over, leastwise there is no good reason for believing such an odd idea.  After death comes new life, as new as my own was when I born and those too will end in death.  C'est la vie.

And if this annoys you, feel free to unfollow and stay in your comfort zone. But the fact that you went out of your way to respond, that you're on these boards in the first place, tells me that you have emotion around this, and if you truly didn't care, then you wouldn't respond. The fact you're reading this tells me that part of you is invested, even if negatively so, and I'd love to know some of your reasoning behind that.

That is probably true for quite a good number of our members.  Of course there is emotion left over if those charged with nurturing your development into adulthood unknowingly deceive you and then reject you when you reject those beliefs.  Fortunately for me that wasn't my experience.  I responded here in a limited way on a specific topic.  Trust me, it was not a cry for help.  Many of us will be rubbed the wrong way if you insist on offering what you found useful as a panacea for us all.  I'm having a very satisfactory life without gods and see no chance of that changing.
[/quote]

[Astreja]

First, I would encourage you to read the water cycle verses - Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10, Amos 9:6, Jeremiah 10:13, and Job 36:27-28. Regarding your insect and pi references, what verses are you referring to? I'm also unclear about your last comment in the parentheses, but I'd gladly respond with some clarification.

Water cycle verses don't appear to be anything special -- just observations by ordinary mortals.

• Ecclesiastes doesn't say how the water returns to the source, although a clever mortal could just look at rain falling on a river upstream and go "Aha!"
  
• Isaiah:  Any farmer knows that rain soaks into the ground and waters the crops.
  
• Amos doesn't mention how "the Lord" manages to get all the salt out of the sea water before it comes raining down somewhere else.
  
• Jeremiah makes it sound like the clouds come rolling in fully formed, possibly from over the edge of a flat earth, rather than forming in the sky.
  
• Job is obvious to anyone who's ever boiled a pot of water and had something like a pot lid pass through the steam.
  

Nope, no gods there.

For the insects:  Leviticus 11:21.

For pi:  1 Kings 7:23.

Regarding my parenthetical comment, pi=3 started with the Babylonians but by 1600 BCE they had refined the value to 3.125.    The Egyptians recorded a value of 3.1605 at about the same time.  I understand that Kings was written during the Babylonian exile, circa 560 BCE, so the author should have at least written 31/10 instead of 30/10.  Shoddy work.

[pocaracas]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you won't help people "come to Christ" here.



You know it's not true when you make up a reason for the made up thing. It's one of the ways to spot a con artist - if they try to sell you a solution to a problem only they know exists, then the problem is not real... and the solution is snake oil.

Define sin without referring to a god.



Josephus only ever mentions Christians. It's as if the myth was already existing... As if it didn't really originate on 33ad, nor 60ad.... but 100~200bc... and only got renamed... hmmm, kinda around the time of the Teacher of Righteousness... and a very similar message.


A Teacher and his disciples.... interesting...


How about all the gospels that didn't make the cut?
Many more than the ones that actually made it to the NT.
Aren't those representative of such "alternative events"?

There's a book detailing some of them called "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman. It would do you good do educate yourself before perpetuating false news.


Perhaps parts of it, yes.
But the whole thing?? I'd take extreme caution with such blanket statements.


Was that the part written after Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire?


Could it be that the man was never a real man, but a mythological figure?
Could it be that the real man behind the myth lived well before the events portrayed?
Could there have been various real men, whose stories got cobbled together into a single person, with some extra magical glue to account for the extraordinary miracles?



Yes, a real person that held that real position... not exactly when the book claims... by quite a few years.


And New York exists for real, hence Spiderman stories must also be real, huh?

You've clearly put a lot of thought into your replies to various comments, so allow me to do some of the same (I won't address every single thing):

Well..... to tell the truth... if any thought was put, it was a long time ago... now I just rinse and repeat.

First, you can't know other people and where they are at all the time, least of all over a forum. Whether or not someone comes to Christ is very hard to predict, and can take years in some cases, in which I may only play a very small role, which I'm very okay with. 

True, I can't know other people... And I can't speak for any people who only browse the forum, but never even singup, let alone reply.
But, from those that do reply... I'm yet to see one that ends up following christ due to something someone writes on here.

Second, I didn't invent Christianity, obviously - as a religion, it exists to worship God, who didn't create sin, we did. I would define sin as all forms of evil, at all levels, within our existence and world, that we are all guilty of. Of course, we can't know what is considered sin without God, but that's not part of the definition I gave. 

So.... sin = evil?
What is evil?
Under whatever definition of evil you'll come up with, is any one person truly evil? Is any action truly evil?

And actually Josephus does mention Jesus, so ... 

As the person who the "chrestians" worship. He gets his info from believers... and not even directly from them.

I assume the "gospels that didn't make the cut" refers to ones that were clearly contradictory and inconsistent, both internally and in comparison with the others (aka Thomas' and Judas'). That's literally why they're not in the Bible canon.

Not all were so clearly contradictory.
The gospel of Peter, I think, is one that occupied much of that book I mentioned.

And Revelation was written somewhere between the year 70-85 whereas Christianity was officially adopted past the year 300 (I looked it up, honestly was surprised it took so long). 

Yep.... as the Roman Empire was falling apart, and would brake in two pieces, the western Roman empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. This ERE would eventually become known as the Byzantine Empire and had its seat of power, not in Rome, but in Constantinople, where, some time before, the Emperor Constantine organized the First Council of Nicaea with the unofficial purpose of uniting the people of the Empire under one god and make the Empire great again. HAHA!

In THEORY, we could be talking about more than one man or what you described, but it's highly unlikely. Honestly it takes more faith to believe that His closest disciples all lied about who He was to their deaths for something they didn't believe in and were able to write that consistent of a character considering their lack of educations. There are some educated screenwriters today can hardly write a consistent character, it seems. 

Aren't you mixing things up?
Were the disciples in the story real people? or fictional people? People representing the disciples of one or more teachers?
As with any cult, the teachers would be following pretty much the same recipe, so they could be virtually indistinguishable from each other.... but I digress into speculation...

As far as I'm aware, none of the gospels was written by any of the actual claimed disciples. None of them is written in first person. All the attributions came after the fact.

And lastly, there's basis in reality for Spidey, but we're talking about a work that was presented as intentional fiction to get across a point. The Bible is presented as reality, so your comparison works only up to that point.

Indeed spidey doesn't claim to be reality. Nor does Harry Potter. Nor does Star Wars.
But much that is presented to us, in book form or as online pages, is presented as reality, when it is not reality.
I can give you an example I have given before on this forum. A friend of mine once showed up with a story he'd been sold by a friend of his who he trusted to have made his homework. The story was that eating peach kernels, about one a day, would aid in warding off cancer and many other ailments. And you can go on your favorite search engine and you will find hundreds if not thousands of pages claiming exactly that! But none of them will give you a reference to the research that they claim exists. NONE! So, then I put my google-fu to work and found the wiki page about the matter and that one has a reference to a study performed that found no correlation between the administration of the compound found in those peach kernels and cancer. And it seems that this study came about due to the existence of so many people claiming it.
So, where did the claim come from? no one knows.
A gag, or a hoax perpetuated by the lack of ability of the common people to verify it and our very human trait of better safe than sorry.

The god claim, with the bible being presented as reality, is really not that different from this case. It just has the extra help of us being unable to perform any study on the nature of any god.
Anything that's presented as reality needs to pass the reality filter. Many things exist for which I don't really care if they pass or not. But the claims that believers make for their gods make me care for it. And, thus far, the bible (or any other holy book) hasn't passed through the reality filter.

[Succubus]

...And Revelation was written somewhere between the year 70-85 whereas Christianity was officially adopted past the year 300 (I looked it up, honestly was surprised it took so long)...

Do you have any idea what this tells the world about you?
Are you telling us that for all your piety, your utter conviction that Christianity is the one true faith, you are unaware of its history? How very revealing.

[Cyberman]

And actually Josephus does mention Jesus, so ... 

Do you think that Jesus was a great calamity that befell the Jews?