No Longer A Christian
- Thread starter Granite
- Start date
- Status
firechyld
New member
Lighthouse, I don't think you realise how uninformed you're sounding. You insist that your beliefs are based solely on "relationship with Jesus" and not the church... yet you hold several convictions that come solely from the church and not from Biblical texts, let alone the words of Jesus himself.
I'm not going to attack your belief in God. But I'd have a lot more respect for those beliefs if you researched them properly. You're woefully uneducated on the matter of your own religion... the thing that seems to be more important to you than anything else in the world.
I'm not going to attack your belief in God. But I'd have a lot more respect for those beliefs if you researched them properly. You're woefully uneducated on the matter of your own religion... the thing that seems to be more important to you than anything else in the world.
BChristianK
New member
Firechyld, perhaps you can give Lighthouse a couple of examples of where his convictions come solely from the church and not from Biblical texts. One would hope you have some examples in mind, else we would be forced to conclude that you are a hypocrite for chastising Lighthouse for being "uniformed" when the basis for your claims are equally uniformed. Now we should not jump to the conclusion that you are a hypocrite, so I am asking you if you would please substantiate your statement or retract it.
Surely you have a basis for these statements and they are not based on "uniformed" assumptions, right?
Again, I think your next post really ought to put some analysis behind your accusations. The definition of hypocrisy is, as you know, pointing to a flaw in another when you have the selfsame flaw. If you are going to take Lighthouse to task for being "uneducated" about his beliefs, I would hope you would be able to articulate what Lighthouse believes and how he is misinformed using your own educated understanding of Lighthouses religion. This would show us that you made your claims with an “educated� understanding and not from an “uneducated� judgment, either about what Lighthouse believes or about the religion you think he does not understand.
So can you please, provide Lighthouse with some of these examples?
Grace and Peace
BChristianK
New member
No, no, no it wasn't. Please tell me that in your research and study of church history that you realized that there was no committee vote to canonize the NT.
If you missed this, then perhaps you stopped researching too soon.
Ok, why don't you tell me which Council you are referring to and what decision you are talking about.
Can you name that committee meeting?
How about we start simple. What is it, specifically, that the Christian church has said that you find hard to believe?
Forgive me if I am asking form something you have already provided but I have looked back over the last several pages in this thread I can't find anything specifically that you think the church just up and invented.
There are hosts of folks that make this claim all the time. Making the claim is one thing, arguing it and showing rational evidence for it is another.
Grace and Peace
:doh:
The DaVinci Code is the most recent, and currently most popular, propaganda for the lies you're basing your new found "knowledge" on. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE, DIMWIT!
firechyld-
What BChristianK said.
What BChristianK said.
firechyld
New member
Sure. The example that jumps to mind immediately is the stand taken against abortion by some Christian groups. It can be traced to two specific extra-biblical texts that became church teaching... but are not Biblical.
I can get specifically into fundamentalism and Christian post-modernism, but I'd really rather not.
Before I go on, I should point out that I don't consider the fact that some of lighthouse's (or anyone else's) beliefs are based on church teaching and not taken directly from Scripture to be a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I've pointed out repeatedly that I think the ability to evolve is something I consider beneficial to a religious structure. Judaism is a great example... not all Judaic beliefs are taken directly from the Tanekh, but this is not a negative thing. I am NOT trying to claim that lighthouse's beliefs are wrong or false because of their origins.
The only fault I see in lighthouse in this area is his insistance that his beliefs are not based on extra-biblical writings and church doctrine. I have no objection to him holding these beliefs... only to his lack of knowledge about their origins, and his claims to the contrary.
I was perhaps a little unclear about what I meant in this section of my post. I was not implying that lighthouse's beliefs were in any way wrong. When I said:
... I was referring to history, to the socio-political climate surrounding the authoring of each text that makes up his Bible, and the history of the church and Christianity in general.
Another example... there was a discussion about the authorship of the gospels, and their role as war time writings. Lighthouse lept into the discussion all hyped up to insist the they were actually written by the people whose names are ascribed to them.
Now, again, I have no trouble with him believing that... although, since it's a historical question, I'd expect him to have some sort of evidence backing his position. But lighthouse had never even encountered the question before. He had never attempted to research the authorship of the gospels, or the study that has been done into that question. He simply accepted what he had been told... that they were written by those specific people. My problem is that he was prepared to argue this uninformed position, with nothing backing him up. Much as he does here.
Now, since I've had many discussions with lighthouse that deal with these topics, I'd really prefer not to get into yet another point-for-point argument with him over issues that are already being discussed elsewhere. I also don't wish to hijack this thread. I hope that my explanation of my position makes the point-for-point unnecessary.
Lighthouse, as I've said many times before, I have no issue with you believing what you believe. I simply wish you'd research more before arguing topics that come down to factual evidence and history. Those debates cannot be won by arguing belief alone.
My belief that abortion is murder is based on my defining murder as the taking of an innocent life. And the Bible is clear that a child within its mother's womb is very much alive.
Next please.
Next please.
Originally posted by lighthouse
:doh:
The DaVinci Code is the most recent, and currently most popular, propaganda for the lies you're basing your new found "knowledge" on. IT WAS AN EXAMPLE, DIMWIT!
Then it was a very poor example. And if it's all you can think of off the top of your head it reinforces what 'Chyld and myself already said: you're not very well-informed on this issue.
In my experience the people who know the most about church history usually aren't Christians. Why?
"No, no, no it wasn't. Please tell me that in your research and study of church history that you realized that there was no committee vote to canonize the NT."
Re-read the sentence. I was referring to the issue of Christ's deity, which the Council of Nicea DID vote on.
The development of the canon was a much more fluid process with individual sects and groups in Africa, Asia, etc., using favorite gospels and books.
"How about we start simple. What is it, specifically, that the Christian church has said that you find hard to believe?"
That a tri-une God was made man to satisfy a blood lust within that same tri-une godhead and that the god-man was subsequently dead and buried for three days and nights (which, according to the gospels, is not strictly true), rose, and ascended. Ancient mythology is full of similar stories, by the way. So nothing in the above paragraph is unique. And it doesn't make it any easier for me to swallow if we're talking Egyptian deities or a Christian one.
Hope this clarifies things.
Re-read the sentence. I was referring to the issue of Christ's deity, which the Council of Nicea DID vote on.
The development of the canon was a much more fluid process with individual sects and groups in Africa, Asia, etc., using favorite gospels and books.
"How about we start simple. What is it, specifically, that the Christian church has said that you find hard to believe?"
That a tri-une God was made man to satisfy a blood lust within that same tri-une godhead and that the god-man was subsequently dead and buried for three days and nights (which, according to the gospels, is not strictly true), rose, and ascended. Ancient mythology is full of similar stories, by the way. So nothing in the above paragraph is unique. And it doesn't make it any easier for me to swallow if we're talking Egyptian deities or a Christian one.
Hope this clarifies things.
On Fire
New member
:yawn:
I started on page 1 of this thread and was going to collect your absurdities but there were so many I just lost interest. You can do it yourself....go back to page 1, read your posts and anywhere you say things like "I experienced this at my church and therefore all of Christianity is hogwash" say to yourself "there I go again, making up lies."
- Status