Brother Vinny
Active member
Hey, Psycho Dave, where's your cute little alien avatar gone off to?
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
ex_fundy
New member
Sadly, this is the level of intelligent responses I got from the Pastors and other Christians I tried to discuss such issues with. The average Pastor is great at preaching to the choir, but if an inquiring person starts to raise good questions, they simply don't want to deal with them (other than the "I'll pray for you" answer). So much for their obedience to I Peter 3:15
I'm really going over my beliefs right now. This is a really transitional period for me. I was raised in a pretty seriously presbyterian home. I grew up in church.
I'm trying to rationalize my beliefs and come to consistency with myself. I'm still consider myself a Christian, possibly because I haven't concluded anything yet. I do want to make sure I don't devote my life to a "meme", or bad fear, or anything besides the way that's right for me.
My church believes in a more organic form of inspiration, so that does take some weight off of the discrepancy issues.
One thing that definitely weighs on my mind, is why God doesn't actively make his presence more clear.
Of course God (When I speak of God I'm refering to the fundamentalist God) can communicate more clearly. Why doesn't he? It must tell us something about His nature and plan. If God really does want all to come to Him, why does His plans include being so obscure?
Those are interesting to me, but not of primary concern.
The haziness regarding the resurrection accounts is especially strange to me.
This issue piques my skeptical tendencies.
When I talk to Christians, they give off the feeling of their being a clear succession of doctrine and the church. Especially Catholics.
When I look at secular history, I realize that the first 4 centuries of Christianity were highly fragmented in doctrine, and this led to some highly unchristian bloodbaths.
After Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he placed Christianity into his religion cabinet along with the other 5 or so religions he actively practiced.
At the time, 3/4th of Christians were gnostic.
The church then persecuted the gnostics underground and into exstinction. .
I still hear Catholics today try and justify it. They even try to justify the Spanish inquisition.
When I see church history, I wonder, this is the founding of a religion on Christ's teachings of forgiveness and love. This is the bride of Christ, the bringer of redemption sent by the God who loved the world so much that He gave His only Son?
I've met so many of them. Not just the people that have faith.
I started about Christianity with this guy I go to church with.
He admitted he doesn't know anything about church history and philosophy and he doesn't care to.
He said, " I know who my friends are."
I've also met a lot of people in the Catholic church, that when questioned about why they're catholic say... "Well, actually the miracles are enough for me."
They're refering to the Eucharistic miracles of the 14th century.
Also the preserved human flesh that supposedly has existed in perfectly for 600 years. They've only seen blurry black and white photo's of these things, but it's still their apologetic.
I kind of feel that way sometimes.
In a way, I'm not surprised that earlier religions would have some elements of truth. That's my Christian perspective.
It does disturb me intellectually.
I'm trying to rationalize my beliefs and come to consistency with myself. I'm still consider myself a Christian, possibly because I haven't concluded anything yet. I do want to make sure I don't devote my life to a "meme", or bad fear, or anything besides the way that's right for me.
My church believes in a more organic form of inspiration, so that does take some weight off of the discrepancy issues.
One thing that definitely weighs on my mind, is why God doesn't actively make his presence more clear.
Of course God (When I speak of God I'm refering to the fundamentalist God) can communicate more clearly. Why doesn't he? It must tell us something about His nature and plan. If God really does want all to come to Him, why does His plans include being so obscure?
Those are interesting to me, but not of primary concern.
The haziness regarding the resurrection accounts is especially strange to me.
This issue piques my skeptical tendencies.
When I talk to Christians, they give off the feeling of their being a clear succession of doctrine and the church. Especially Catholics.
When I look at secular history, I realize that the first 4 centuries of Christianity were highly fragmented in doctrine, and this led to some highly unchristian bloodbaths.
After Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, he placed Christianity into his religion cabinet along with the other 5 or so religions he actively practiced.
At the time, 3/4th of Christians were gnostic.
The church then persecuted the gnostics underground and into exstinction. .
I still hear Catholics today try and justify it. They even try to justify the Spanish inquisition.
When I see church history, I wonder, this is the founding of a religion on Christ's teachings of forgiveness and love. This is the bride of Christ, the bringer of redemption sent by the God who loved the world so much that He gave His only Son?
I've met so many of them. Not just the people that have faith.
I started about Christianity with this guy I go to church with.
He admitted he doesn't know anything about church history and philosophy and he doesn't care to.
He said, " I know who my friends are."
I've also met a lot of people in the Catholic church, that when questioned about why they're catholic say... "Well, actually the miracles are enough for me."
They're refering to the Eucharistic miracles of the 14th century.
Also the preserved human flesh that supposedly has existed in perfectly for 600 years. They've only seen blurry black and white photo's of these things, but it's still their apologetic.
I kind of feel that way sometimes.
In a way, I'm not surprised that earlier religions would have some elements of truth. That's my Christian perspective.
It does disturb me intellectually.
To Natedog:
Sounds like you really are reexamining what you believe and why you believe it. My experience has been that each time I go through something like this, God draws me closer to Himself. I usually am led to James chapter 1 verse 5-6 and chapter4 6-10.
Whenever I really humble myself is when I truly see and experience God working in my life. I found you can't fake humility. When I am truly broken and truly seeking answers, He always answers me.
This seems to happen only a couple times a year, because I always return to a proud state of mind in which I can not hear Him.
We all go through a cycle in our walk with God. You just need to get back to the basics, Humble yourself, repent, pray, trust and obey.
A famous American once said, " It is not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, its the parts that I do!"
Concentrate on following the parts that you do understand and know to be true.
This is a very heavy Spiritual debate, that we are following and participating in. It is bound to bring up questions and doubts.
It is fairly obvious that it has shaken up Zakath, on the other side of the argument, preety seriously. Knight has only heard from him once in the past ten days.
God wrote the Bible for people who really love Him, and to show them that they can live for Him in a world that hates Him. Above all it is God's book of teaching and instruction for us. Seek out the teaching you need most at this point from it. The spirit of God has promised to lead us.
I will pray for you tonight , and may God bless you.
Sounds like you really are reexamining what you believe and why you believe it. My experience has been that each time I go through something like this, God draws me closer to Himself. I usually am led to James chapter 1 verse 5-6 and chapter4 6-10.
Whenever I really humble myself is when I truly see and experience God working in my life. I found you can't fake humility. When I am truly broken and truly seeking answers, He always answers me.
This seems to happen only a couple times a year, because I always return to a proud state of mind in which I can not hear Him.
We all go through a cycle in our walk with God. You just need to get back to the basics, Humble yourself, repent, pray, trust and obey.
A famous American once said, " It is not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, its the parts that I do!"
Concentrate on following the parts that you do understand and know to be true.
This is a very heavy Spiritual debate, that we are following and participating in. It is bound to bring up questions and doubts.
It is fairly obvious that it has shaken up Zakath, on the other side of the argument, preety seriously. Knight has only heard from him once in the past ten days.
God wrote the Bible for people who really love Him, and to show them that they can live for Him in a world that hates Him. Above all it is God's book of teaching and instruction for us. Seek out the teaching you need most at this point from it. The spirit of God has promised to lead us.
I will pray for you tonight , and may God bless you.
Since you asked directly, I will try to give the best answer I can - although I fear it may still be unsatisfactory.
The shortest answer I can give is: no, I do not. The "why not?" part will be somewhat more complex. It could be answered with a simple "why should I?", but I am afraid that this would sound disrespectful to your faith and I do not intend that - although it would truly be a valid, if abrupt, response. The "why should I?" in my particular case comes from the simple fact that I do simply not follow that part of Christian doctrine in any way; if I were to at all identify with Christianity, it would solely be from a philosophical perspective, not from a theological one. I find much to agree with in what Christ taught. But I find no need at all to accept the "religious" aspects (or, from my perspective, the "mythos") surrounding him. I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, simply because I have no reason to believe that this happened, but further have no particular need for it to have happened either. I do not require this event to have occured to place a great deal of credence in what I see as the fundamental teachings he gave.
Obviously, I do not accept the Bible as either "inerrant" or in all parts the "Word of God", either - not surprising, since I have already stated that I would describe myself as an agnostic and so do not believe that the fundamental questions regarding God, even the question of whether or not a God exists, can be conclusively resolved either way. Even here, though, this does not mean that I simply "reject" the Bible's teachings - that is far too simplistic a view, although some will no doubt try to force it to fit here. There is a great deal of wisdom to be found in the Bible. There is also, though, a great deal of wisdom to be found in the other "sacred works" of the world, and I think that most people do themselves a great disservice in not being open to finding that wisdom wherever it exists.
I fully expect at this point that I will see some number of responses from "believers" regarding the error of my ways - as if I had never seen such before. Again, nothing I have said here should be interpreted as meaning disrespect for your faith - it simply isn't for me, and since you asked, I've told you why. I would hope those reading would at least respect this much. We'll see.
When they upgraded the system, it probably got lost or deleted. I've got better things to do than figure out where to get another one.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Better things, like providing a link through your profile to ypur website that features, among other things, a cartoon Christ desiring fellatio from one of His child supplicants? (It is this self-same site, IIRC, that got you into hot water here before.)
I don't mind reading atheistic arguments. But mischaracterizing the founder of a group you disagree with simply because you disagree with them is both disingenuous and infantile. And linking to a website with the above stated content is, I would gather, against the policy of this forum.
To bmyers:
I find much to agree with in what Christ taught. But I find no need at all to accept the "religious" aspects (or, from my perspective, the "mythos") surrounding him. I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, simply because I have no reason to believe that this happened, but further have no particular need for it to have happened either. I do not require this event to have occured to place a great deal of credence in what I see as the fundamental teachings he gave.
Upon reading your entire last post, the parable that came to my mind is the one about the seeds by the wayside. Obviously you have heard the Word of God, and it has not taken root in your case. My main concern is that people hear the word of God, the gospel message. The Bible clearly states that not all will accept it. I, nor no one else should try to force the gospel upon you or try to ridicule you. One of my main points in these threads is that agnosticism is the "reasonable" philosophy, for unbelievers, not hard Atheism. You have just said that you consider yourself an agnostic. That makes a certain kind of sense to me. You are not a God-hater, or a Christ and Christian mocker, like many of the unbelievers are. For this I applaud you, and why you and I have been able to discuss some differences of opinion and thought.
Regarding the above partial quote of yours. It is clear to me why you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Many people come to believe in the existence of God for many different reasons. The number one reason that people come to believe in Jesus Christ {IMHO] is they realize that they are awful sinners, who need a Saviour.
You are as I once was perhaps, an agnostic, who didn't think I was so bad a sinner, that I needed a Saviour. I said the sinner's prayer many times, but the last time I said it , I really meant it, and I very much realized that I was facing a fearful day of reckoning with a God who loved me so much that He offered me a way of escape.
There is a Scripture that says, " neither shall they believe, even if someone rise from the dead." I pointed out to you that you have intimated that you would believe if you saw what the Apostle Thomas saw. I would simply add to that now. I think God will hold you to that belief, but I think you will not believe even if you were to see a risen Christ, unless you first realize that you helplessly and hopelessly need a Saviour who paid the penalty of death for your sins.
First century Jews and God-fearing Gentiles knew that they needed a Saviour. I and most modern men had to first be convinced that we were sinners, and then that we could not fix the problem ourselves.
If science could someday prove that the Earth is 5 billion years old it could still not disprove to me my need for the Saviour.
If science could somehow prove to you that the earth is only 10,000 years old, it would still not enable you to receive a Saviour IF you don't believe you need one.
Again, I am not condemning you, I am just a fellow human trying to find answers and truth. I believe with all my heart that I have found the one I needed. I have thoroughly enjoyed conversing with you, because you give direct answers and you are not condescending. I am sorry that this post is so "preachy", sometimes I just have to let out, what God has placed inside..
Last edited:
Thanks; I do appreciate the understanding. However, I would have to confess to being a "Christian mocker" in some cases, in the sense that I have mocked Christians - but at least I try very hard not to do it simply because they are Christians, but rather because they in particular are simply being so darned bull-headed in some of their arguments...
From this and your other comments, I think I need to clarify, or at least expand upon, something I said previously. The fundamental reason that I do not see a "need" to believe that Jesus rose from the dead has basically nothing to do with whether or not I believe myself (or anyone else) to be an "awful sinner"; I do NOT believe that I am the epitome or goodness, or that I never commit any act that would in the Christian vocabulary be referred to as a "sin". Rather, I do not accept the Christian notion of "salvation" of souls (should such things exist). Simply put, it seems to me to be an extremely odd system for a God to set up, and has several very serious contradictions with what I believe would have to be the nature of any God.
If I had seen what the traditional story claims that Thomas saw, then I would certainly believe the something very remarkable had happened. Whether or not that would be accompanied by additional beliefs in other points of traditional Christian dogma, I can't say - but it is unlikely that such beliefs would result from that experience alone. And it has always struck me as odd that Jesus himself, at least per the accounts we have in the Gospels, never explicitly made many of the claims that Paul and others later made regarding him. I am also struck by the fact that what we do know from the New Testament did not come as a direct record penned by Jesus or by anyone who actually knew him during his life. So please forgive me for questioning whether or not what we do have is a fully accurate record of what did occur during Jesus' lifetime. And while I won't get much into the existence of other accounts that were not accepted for inclusion into the New Testament, notably the Gospels of Thomas and Philip, their existence and what they say in contrast to the "traditional" four Gospels is very intriguing. Suffice it to say that we really know very little about just how the Gospels were selected during the second and third centuries A.D. Tradition would of course have it that such choices were divinely inspired and without error, but that's quite circular reasoning in the final analysis.
Nor would I expect it to - but then I have to ask again, why is the acceptance of a "young Earth" model seemingly so important to a certain relatively small group of Christians?
Also correct - I do not see these questions as in any way related.
Again, I am not condemning you, I am just a fellow human trying to find answers and truth. I believe with all my heart that I have found the one I needed. I have thoroughly enjoyed conversing with you, because you give direct answers and you are not condescending. I am sorry that this post is so "preachy", sometimes I just have to let out, what God has placed inside..
Not a problem; your post is FAR less "preachy" than many I have seen.
ex_fundy
New member
I find it strange that you would quote Mark Twain in this context. Did you know that he also said:
"[The Bible] is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."
I don't know Zakath, but I consider your statement here rather presumptuous. Unless you've read something I didn't see, we don't know anything about Zakath's condition.
ex_fundy
New member
I found your signature quote interesting. Especially since I just came across this from Martin Luther (leader of Protestent reformation):
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
The contrast couldn't be much greater. I definitely fall more in-line with Buddha.
I'd have to agree, on both counts. I find myself very, very sympathetic with Buddhist teachings, in many regards. It is one of the very few "religious" schools of thought (although Buddhism is technically not a religion at all) that places a very high level of emphasis on reason and rational argument.
For an additional comment on the topic, here's another of my favorites:
"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth; more than ruin, more, even, than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man."
- Bertrand Russell
And the relevence of your personal snipe at me to the Enyart/Zakath debate is precisely what?
I don't mind trolls who cannot deal with other people's senses of humor...
ex_fundy
New member
It would be nice if this "reason" were shared with the rest of us. Has there been a direct communication or did Knight receive a (reliable) tip that Zakath is hiding out?
I think Zakath could easily find enough material on this thread alone to refute Bob's last misuse of probability.
To Lightson:
I certainly will!:thumb:
If you need a word of encouragement, I have truly enjoyed reading your posts, and have said to myself, several times, that this person, Lightson, is surely a child of God.
Conversing with Attention- hsuedens is a tough task. He is a confusing amalgamation, of several ideologies. I usually just skip over his posts because of their length and obtuseness. I started reading his lately, as they have gotten short and to the point.
Remember, " Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
And also, remember, " No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man: and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
This debate started on June 16th? There have been several deadline extensions. The debate should have been over weeks ago. We will just have to endure and see how it ends up.
I certainly will!:thumb:
If you need a word of encouragement, I have truly enjoyed reading your posts, and have said to myself, several times, that this person, Lightson, is surely a child of God.
Conversing with Attention- hsuedens is a tough task. He is a confusing amalgamation, of several ideologies. I usually just skip over his posts because of their length and obtuseness. I started reading his lately, as they have gotten short and to the point.
Remember, " Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
And also, remember, " No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man: and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
This debate started on June 16th? There have been several deadline extensions. The debate should have been over weeks ago. We will just have to endure and see how it ends up.
To ex-fundy:
A good quote, is still a good quote. Its true and it is pithy. No one is wrong or right all the time. Obviously Mark Twain was not a Christian and in fact had disdain for them and for the Bible in general. However I find it so right, and maybe he believed it himself, when he said, " It is not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do." Ironic coming from him, but perhaps prophetic as well.
Compare Twain's uncharacteristic saying to Caiaphas famous prophesy in John 11 , 49-51.
Also my statement is presumptuous, but I try to hope and believe the best about people. If Zakath is having a hard time that is a good thing.
A good quote, is still a good quote. Its true and it is pithy. No one is wrong or right all the time. Obviously Mark Twain was not a Christian and in fact had disdain for them and for the Bible in general. However I find it so right, and maybe he believed it himself, when he said, " It is not the parts of the Bible that I don't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do." Ironic coming from him, but perhaps prophetic as well.
Compare Twain's uncharacteristic saying to Caiaphas famous prophesy in John 11 , 49-51.
Also my statement is presumptuous, but I try to hope and believe the best about people. If Zakath is having a hard time that is a good thing.
To bmyers.
{QUOTE]Originally posted by bmyers
Thanks; I do appreciate the understanding. However, I would have to confess to being a "Christian mocker" in some cases, in the sense that I have mocked Christians - but at least I try very hard not to do it simply because they are Christians, but rather because they in particular are simply being so darned bull-headed in some of their arguments...
When I was an agnostic, been there and done that, especially the televangelists and the money grabbers. In fact I still mock some televangelists.
]
{QUOTE]Originally posted by bmyers
Thanks; I do appreciate the understanding. However, I would have to confess to being a "Christian mocker" in some cases, in the sense that I have mocked Christians - but at least I try very hard not to do it simply because they are Christians, but rather because they in particular are simply being so darned bull-headed in some of their arguments...
When I was an agnostic, been there and done that, especially the televangelists and the money grabbers. In fact I still mock some televangelists.
]
- Status