Hello atheistforum

[Epimethean]

"There is no central organization to Christianity, and no conspiracy. You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to."

Unless you are Catholic, eh? I imagine you have a few other provisos and quid pro quos to use as filters when no-one is looking.

[brotherlylove]

Yes but it seems your too stupid to see the words till all be which means it hasn't. Either way, I am not gonna argue the Yahweh book of tall tales with you since to do so is utterly stupid as is believing it to be gospel truth.

Or perhaps you failed to notice that He said those words before He went to the cross.

And his last words according to Matthew and Mark (or whomever wrote those gospels) were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthan", according to Luke (or whover wrote that gospel) were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Why should any thinking human believe those fables when they can't even be bothered to agree on that and VERY MANY other points? Honestly, believing in obvious fiction is a sign of mental illness.

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthan were not his last words (He was quoting isaiah to call attention to the fact that He was there fulfilling it at that moment). His last words were "It is finished; Father, into your hands I commit your spirit."

I believe scripture because God showed me its true. You want extraoridinary evidence and God provides such evidence. If you wanted to know the truth, He would show it to you.

---

Unless you are Catholic, eh? I imagine you have a few other provisos and quid pro quos to use as filters when no-one is looking.

Since Baptist and Lutheran pastors, Protestant ministers and other priests have frequently been implicated in sexual abuse against minors, methinks I smell the scent of no true Scotsman here

I assumed he was referring to the catholic church; which is definitively not a Christian institution. The true church is the body of Christ. There may be saved catholics and saved lutherans, but the body of Christ is a body of believers, not institutions.

[Epimethean]

Blah, blah, blah. You can define what it isn't, and yet you cannot define what it is. Interesting.

[Zen Badger]

You left out this bit of Matthew

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whenever a Christian tries to justify the new covenant they ALWAYS deliberately leave that out of the equation. Now let's hear the mental gymnastics of our resident christoholic so he can justify ignoring those two verses.

Notice the key word there? "Fulfilled"

So if the old laws etc have been nullified by jesus how is it that Leviticus is quoted whenever christians want to condemn Homosexuality??

[Mister Agenda]

Nice to meet you, ex-bro. What led you to be an atheist?

Skepticism, I suppose. I stopped believing in ESP, alien visitation, Bigfoot, Nessie, and ghosts before I stopped believing in God. It was just the result of applying the same standards to all my beliefs.

The things I listed as evidence are not the basis of my faith. They are simply what got me in the door. God gives me daily revelation. It would take an omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being to work what He has wrought in my life.

How do you know that? Were you so messed up that only a being that speaks universes into existence could account for the improvement in your situation? Do you get information about distant galaxies only an omnipotent being could find out? What the heck are your criteria for determining that something you are in (effectively) psychic contact with is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent?

God gives a general revelation in His creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is faced with His existence, and a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. My faith is based on the tangible and experiential relationship I have with Jesus Christ. That's what Christianity is about. My faith isn't based on feelings; that isn't faith, that is emotionalism. It is based on knowing God personally.

In a way that can't be objectively demonstrated. Why on earth would you expect someone to take your word for all that? Anyone could claim the same thing, which is a lot of unfalsifiable stuff that sounds very grand.

You also seem to indicate that Christianity was invented, like a conspiracy. Even skeptical historians believe that the apostles were convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

Do you think other religions were inspired by God? If not, how do you think they got started?

Therefore, according to your theory, they would have had to accidently create this ingenuous brainwashing tool that you postulate. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?

What invention? The tools to start a religion have been lying around for millenia. Mormonism is one of the fastest-growing religions and it didn't take a genius to come up with the charismatic leader becomes a legend in his own time formula. It doesn't require conspiracy, just a good meme, like 'everybody you know will suffer an eternity of torture if you don't convince them Jesus was the son of God'. You don't even have to read 'Brainwashing for Dummies'. David Koresh and that Heaven's Gate guy weren't geniuses. They were just charismatic and deluded, and delusions can be catching, especially in situations where you isolate your followers from their friends and families.

People are belief machines, they can be convinced of almost anything under the right circumstances. We connect the unconnected by instinct all the time. Your team won when you wore a particular jersey? Wear it next time and maybe it will help them win again! There's a reason why the fundamental basis of science that has enabled us to make so much technological progress in the last few hundred years is finding ways to keep experiments from being influenced by human bias. We are incredibly easy to fool, especially by ourselves.

As I said, it's not the basis of my faith, but I do think its pretty remarkable. People spend tens of thousands of dollars on psychologists and self-help programs over years of time to achieve the same results I did (or never) in a few months with no effort, and that with a few different issues at the same time.

Most of psychotherapy is just listening to the patient and giving good advice on how to deal constructively with problems, many of us are lucky enough that we don't have to shell out $75 an hour for someone who can do that for us. Even an imaginary friend can make us feel better. Countless people are comforted by what they think are the ghosts of dead loved ones and feel guided by them and helped by talking to them. I'm happy you got good results, but not amazed by it. It isn't remarkable. I acknowledge that faith in a higher power helps some people change their lives and get through things, but I also acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make any difference who or what they think the higher power is. I do have a reservation about that, though: I haven't observed that people who don't believe in a higher power have more trouble getting through things and improving their lives than people who do, my impression that faith can be helpful could well be bias based on hearing a lot of anecdotes to that effect.

[Epimethean]

Even the suckers need a venue for change.

[brotherlylove]

Skepticism, I suppose. I stopped believing in ESP, alien visitation, Bigfoot, Nessie, and ghosts before I stopped believing in God. It was just the result of applying the same standards to all my beliefs.

What standards did you apply?

How do you know that? Were you so messed up that only a being that speaks universes into existence could account for the improvement in your situation? Do you get information about distant galaxies only an omnipotent being could find out? What the heck are your criteria for determining that something you are in (effectively) psychic contact with is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent?

Psychic is not the right word to describe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. My general criteria are being able to shape and alter events and circumstances both large and small, predict the future, know me completely, always being there, and a pure love.

In a way that can't be objectively demonstrated. Why on earth would you expect someone to take your word for all that? Anyone could claim the same thing, which is a lot of unfalsifiable stuff that sounds very grand.

I don't expect you'll take my word for it; I pray God will have mercy on you and draw you near to Him.

Do you think other religions were inspired by God? If not, how do you think they got started?

Satan.

What invention? The tools to start a religion have been lying around for millenia. Mormonism is one of the fastest-growing religions and it didn't take a genius to come up with the charismatic leader becomes a legend in his own time formula. It doesn't require conspiracy, just a good meme, like 'everybody you know will suffer an eternity of torture if you don't convince them Jesus was the son of God'. You don't even have to read 'Brainwashing for Dummies'. David Koresh and that Heaven's Gate guy weren't geniuses. They were just charismatic and deluded, and delusions can be catching, especially in situations where you isolate your followers from their friends and families.

Again, even skeptical historians believe that the apostles were honestly convinced of the resurrection of Christ. Further, all but one of them were all martyred for their faith. The theory doesn't match the facts. You have a long way to go to prove a conspiracy.

People are belief machines, they can be convinced of almost anything under the right circumstances. We connect the unconnected by instinct all the time. Your team won when you wore a particular jersey? Wear it next time and maybe it will help them win again! There's a reason why the fundamental basis of science that has enabled us to make so much technological progress in the last few hundred years is finding ways to keep experiments from being influenced by human bias. We are incredibly easy to fool, especially by ourselves.

I can agree with some of this, however, it doesn't follow that belief in God is a delusion, or is ruled out by, or mutually exclusive with science.

Most of psychotherapy is just listening to the patient and giving good advice on how to deal constructively with problems, many of us are lucky enough that we don't have to shell out $75 an hour for someone who can do that for us. Even an imaginary friend can make us feel better. Countless people are comforted by what they think are the ghosts of dead loved ones and feel guided by them and helped by talking to them. I'm happy you got good results, but not amazed by it. It isn't remarkable. I acknowledge that faith in a higher power helps some people change their lives and get through things, but I also acknowledge that it doesn't seem to make any difference who or what they think the higher power is. I do have a reservation about that, though: I haven't observed that people who don't believe in a higher power have more trouble getting through things and improving their lives than people who do, my impression that faith can be helpful could well be bias based on hearing a lot of anecdotes to that effect.

According to statistics, believers live longer, have happier and healthier lives and are less prone to depression and suicide. In any case, the changes in my life are remarkable, and happened with virtually no effort on my part. I think that is noteworthy, you are free to disagree. It's not the central point to any argument I am making.

---

So if the old laws etc have been nullified by jesus how is it that Leviticus is quoted whenever christians want to condemn Homosexuality??

I'm not sure why any Christian would quote Leviticus on that, because homosexuality is described as sin in the New Testament.

[Zen Badger]

I'm not sure why any Christian would quote Leviticus on that, because homosexuality is described as sin in the New Testament.

They usually quote Leviticus, but where in the New Testament does it actually condemn homosexuality?

[Abracadabra]

You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to.

So are you're saying that if I don't believe that Jesus died to pay for my sins,
and I reject the whole notion of the "Sacrificial Lamb" thing, that this is ok?

May I ask who gave you the authority to change those rules prey tell?
I personally think you have just made a highly devious and underhanded statement.
You say, "You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to."
But by the mere use of the word "Christ" instead of "Jesus" you are automatically demanding the following:

1. They must believe in the God of Abraham and the fable of original sin.
2. They must believe in the prophecies of a promised messiah.
3. They must believe that the entire Old Testament is infallible truth and the word of God.
4. They must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin
5. They must believe that God spoke to a crowd from a cloud (after all if the bible contains lies why believe any of it?)
6. They must believe in Satan who tested and tempted Jesus
7. They must believe that evil spirits possess people and that Jesus can cast them out.
8. They must believe that Mary Magdalene was carrying around a load of seven evil spirits before she met Jesus.
9. They must believe that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who died to pay for their sins.
10. They must believe that the only way to salvation is by condoning his crucifixion on their behalf.
11. They must believe that to not believe in Jesus is justification for eternal damnation (because John says so in these fables)
12. They must believe that only few people make it to heaven and the vast majority of souls are sent to eternal punishment (because Jesus say so in these fables)

Holy shit. This is already a dozen things that a person must believe just in order to believe that Jesus was "The Christ".
And truly this list could be made virtually as long as the entire biblical cannon because in truth you really need to believe all of it.
I'm mean if you're going to believe any of it at all you may as well believe all of it.

You say, "You are free to worship and follow Christ the way you are called to."

I say baloney. The mere fact that you use the term "Christ" reveals your treachery.

Tell people that they are free to follow the teachings of Jesus, and don't even demand that they are required to "worship" him, and you make make some progress.

But to proclaims that they must "worship" him as the "Christ" is already placing restrictions on "Freedom".

Are they "free" to believe that Jesus had nothing to do with the God of Abraham?
Are they "free" to believe that he has nothing to do with any idea of a 'sacrificial lamb of God"

If not, then basically what "Freedom" are you talking about?

There is no FREEDOM in Christianity Brotherlylove.

Freedom and the Christian God are totally incompatible concepts.

There is no freedom with the Christian God. You either swallow the dogma hook-line-and-sinker, or you don't.

There is no "middle path" in Christianity. It's all or nothing.

If you want the freedom of a "middle path" you should look into Buddhism.

---

I'm not sure why any Christian would quote Leviticus on that, because homosexuality is described as sin in the New Testament.

They usually quote Leviticus, but where in the New Testament does it actually condemn homosexuality?

It's probably somewhere in the writings by Paul. Paul was extremely nasty about dredging up crap from the Old Testament and shoving it down the throat of Jesus.

And of course Christians worship the words of Paul as if they came directly from Jesus. In fact, a lot of stuff that they claim came from Jesus actually came from Paul.

I'm absolutely certain that Jesus himself never addressed homosexuality directly. But that doesn't mean that it isn't in the New Testament somewhere. There are a lot of references to the Old Testament within the New Testament so it could easily be referred to in that kind of indirect way.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, it's not there. Not once. There isn't a single word in the entirety of the text that translates to homosexual.