Christianity runs into secularism.

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Look back at all God's involvement and you won't find a single instance where God didn't use a man to either work through or to proclaim what he wanted accomplished.

Why did he involve himself? Because without his involvement we were all destined for destruction.
"What God wanted accomplished....."
Tell us more about free will again.

You are contradicting yourself with each post now.
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
"What God wanted accomplished....."
Tell us more about free will again.

You are contradicting yourself with each post now.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. Despite your extreme bias to find fault I'll try to explain it in a different way.

I have children and they have free will. I don't control my children as if they were robots, but that doesn't mean that I completely turn them loose to do whatever they please without ever advising or guiding them either. Likewise God wants his children to prosper. He does advise and try to guide them but he also gives them the ability to disobey and choose the wrong thing.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
No, I'm not contradicting myself. Despite your extreme bias to find fault I'll try to explain it in a different way.

I have children and they have free will. I don't control my children as if they were robots, but that doesn't mean that I completely turn them loose to do whatever they please without ever advising or guiding them either. Likewise God wants his children to prosper. He does advise and try to guide them but he also gives them the ability to disobey and choose the wrong thing.
Scripture tells a different story than what you are trying to portray.
God flat out kills for his chosen people for a couple thousand years and then abandons 6 million of them in WWII.
If you would like we can go example by example of how the God you worship directly kills individuals, tribes, villages and bloodlines in order to have his will done. He wipes out men, women and children.
He creates disasters and sends spirits to murder. He hardens hearts to get his way and then punishes those people for his own actions. How exactly was Pharoah allowed to use his free will?

Your free will is another excuse for a nonexistent god. You cannot convince fellow christians with the explanations you try to pass off here so you are going to have to be very specific when dealing with me.

I see that you compare yourself with God as to how you oversee your children. That sounds just like what the writers did 1900 to 4000 years ago.
It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
Scripture tells a different story than what you are trying to portray.
God flat out kills for his chosen people for a couple thousand years and then abandons 6 million of them in WWII.
If you would like we can go example by example of how the God you worship directly kills individuals, tribes, villages and bloodlines in order to have his will done. He wipes out men, women and children.
He creates disasters and sends spirits to murder. He hardens hearts to get his way and then punishes those people for his own actions. How exactly was Pharoah allowed to use his free will?

Your free will is another excuse for a nonexistent god. You cannot convince fellow christians with the explanations you try to pass off here so you are going to have to be very specific when dealing with me.

I see that you compare yourself with God as to how you oversee your children. That sounds just like what the writers did 1900 to 4000 years ago.
It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Well, I'm sorry my friend. It really doesn't seem to matter what I say. You are going to find fault. It's what you have chosen. How's that for free will?


What I find hard to understand is how you can reject God because of what you accuse him of doing but still insist that he doesn't exist. That's one I hope that you will answer someday for yourself.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Well, I'm sorry my friend. It really doesn't seem to matter what I say. You are going to find fault. It's what you have chosen. How's that for free will?


What I find hard to understand is how you can reject God because of what you accuse him of doing but still insist that he doesn't exist. That's one I hope that you will answer someday for yourself.

I completely understand why you wouldn't want to continue such a conversation.

I reject the stories about such a god. I reject the personal relationships based off of those stories about a god.

If such a god cannot stand up to scrutiny based off of the stories such a god isn't much of a god at all.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Look back at all God's involvement and you won't find a single instance where God didn't use a man to either work through or to proclaim what he wanted accomplished.

Why did he involve himself? Because without his involvement we were all destined for destruction.
Humor me for a minute. If the whole story was man made and the goal was power, control, wealth and dominance of the people, what could be a very smart reason the story
was that God always worked through man and proclaimed what he wanted through man?
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
I completely understand why you wouldn't want to continue such a conversation.

I reject the stories about such a god. I reject the personal relationships based off of those stories about a god.

If such a god cannot stand up to scrutiny based off of the stories such a god isn't much of a god at all.

If you really want to ask about something specific I'll try my best to answer the question. You have to be open to the explanation though, otherwise it's just a waste of my time.

I do agree with you though that if I viewed God as some do, both atheists and Christians, I would be just as adverse of an opinion of him as you.
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
Humor me for a minute. If the whole story was man made and the goal was power, control, wealth and dominance of the people, what could be a very smart reason the story
was that God always worked through man and proclaimed what he wanted through man?

I'm sure that many have used it as such, but it's plain for any to see that actually wants to take the time to study the scriptures for themselves that your hypothesis isn't the case.

The scriptures clearly tell us that the greatest is the one who is servant to all. Humility, and an emphasis for spiritual above material is a recurring theme.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
I'm sure that many have used it as such, but it's plain for any to see that actually wants to take the time to study the scriptures for themselves that your hypothesis isn't the case.

The scriptures clearly tell us that the greatest is the one who is servant to all. Humility, and an emphasis for spiritual above material is a recurring theme.
You aren't getting the point.
If you are led to believe that God always worked through man then you aren't going to question why God is a no show and you only ever see his "representatives".
It continues to this day.
And your spiritual above material is wishful thinking. The Vatican is worth billions while people are homeless and hungry.
Did Jesus amass wealth while ignoring those in need?
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
You aren't getting the point.
If you are led to believe that God always worked through man then you aren't going to question why God is a no show and you only ever see his "representatives".
It continues to this day.
And your spiritual above material is wishful thinking. The Vatican is worth billions while people are homeless and hungry.
Did Jesus amass wealth while ignoring those in need?

No I think I got the point. What I'm saying though is that the use of the message doesn't invalidate the message.

As far as God being a no show, if I didn't have a relationship with God I might feel that way. I'm sure you will scoff at such an idea but there are billions on the planet that do feel and have an awareness of God himself, both with them and leading them, myself included.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
No I think I got the point. What I'm saying though is that the use of the message doesn't invalidate the message.

As far as God being a no show, if I didn't have a relationship with God I might feel that way. I'm sure you will scoff at such an idea but there are billions on the planet that do feel and have an awareness of God himself, both with them and leading them, myself included.
I don't scoff at the idea that you and they believe you have a relationship with God.
I'm quite sure you believe you do.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
This statement leans heavily towards my thoughts.
"
Christians are obligated to accept the fact that God first chose to minister and support only the Jews, and to ignore all others, and even to assist the Jews in plundering the neighboring gentile populations. At the time there were large civilizations in Asia, Europe, North and South America, Africa, and Australia. People living in these areas did not learn anything about Jesus until centuries later, some even until around 1500 years later. To consider this fact is sobering. Why would a god do this, ignore humans for tens of thousands of years only to present himself solely to a desert tribe on a tiny spot of land? A more reasonable explanation is that the Jewish people invented a god that favored them, just like every other culture that has existed."
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
The surest sign of a man-made enterprise is that it splits quickly into many different factions. On the other hand, one initiated by a god would be expected to converge into a tight unity. This is because only those groups that aligned correctly with the divine theological blueprint would receive supernatural support and thereby flourish, attract members, and survive the long term. Any wayward factions would lose favor and couldn’t compete for new members.

There are now approximately 38,000 Christian denominations, many of which have very disparate beliefs and practices. This is a valid clue that Christianity is a man-made concept.

Other religions

A corollary to the previous point is made by looking at other religions. The Pew Research Center in 2012 estimated the size of the major world religions as a percentage of the total population, as follows”

Christianity 31.5%, Islam 23.3%, Unaffiliated 16.3%, Hinduism 15.0%, Buddhism 7.1%, Folk Religions 5.9%, Other 0.8%, and Judaism 0.2%.

Three points can be made. First, it is obvious that at least 68.5% of the world’s population is not following the true religion, and most of these people are following a false religion. Therefore, it is correct to assume that there are billions of people who are sure that their religion is the correct one, even though they are completely mistaken. So, we know for a fact that a completely false religion can flourish and command the adherence of a major swath of the world’s population over several millenniums of time. What this implies is that faith in the Christian religion is similarly vulnerable to the same degree of delusion and that its large number of followers is no evidence of its authenticity.

Second, if Christianity is the only true religion, then in 2000 years’ time it should have swallowed up the false religions and be the only major religion remaining in the world.

Third, when one examines the geographic distribution of the major world religions, it is seen that a person’s place of birth is by far the major deciding factor in their choice of religion. This implies that religious belief is mostly a consequence of childhood and cultural indoctrination, and not the result of objective analysis.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Because of societal pressure and scientific advancements, Christian practices and dogma have changed over the centuries. However, the text of the Bible has remained static, resulting in a disconnect that becomes more glaring as time goes on. The best way to explain this point further is to quote Mark Twain:

The Christian’s Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes…The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry…..There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. H3ll fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

The conclusion that should be drawn from this point is that a religion and holy book inspired or authored by a supernatural deity should not have multiple issues that have to be abandoned because of future advancement of society. Rather, it should be predictive of such changes.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Consider the following passage from Matthew 12:39-41:

But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the the belly of a sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.…

There are two problems with this statement. First, it seems to imply that Jesus believed literally in the story of Jonah, recognized by sane people today to be a fable. Either Jesus actually believed the Jonah story and made this statement or it was the fabrication of the author, neither of which bodes well for Christianity. Second, by all Gospel accounts, Jesus was dead for only two nights and one day. He was crucified late on Friday and rose on Sunday morning.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
No I think I got the point. What I'm saying though is that the use of the message doesn't invalidate the message.

As far as God being a no show, if I didn't have a relationship with God I might feel that way. I'm sure you will scoff at such an idea but there are billions on the planet that do feel and have an awareness of God himself, both with them and leading them, myself included.
When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim that it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent, and does nothing.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
This speaks volumes.

The oldest existing New Testament manuscripts are all copies of copies and certainly contain many errors, omissions, and deliberate edits. The following is from:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/symes02.htm

The original Greek manuscripts of the books of the New Testament have not survived. What are extant are hand written copies of copies of copies – over 5,600 fragments or complete copies in the original Greek, with 94 per cent dating from the 9th century. The earliest is a tiny fragment from the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. The earliest complete copy of the Gospel of Mark (which was written about the year 70) dates from the 4th century. Our earliest copies of Paul’s writings come about 150 years after he wrote them. Mistakes and intentional alterations in the copying process resulted in thousands of variations in these texts until the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The differences were mostly spelling and grammatical errors, but also there were some deliberate omissions, insertions and mistranslations in the New Testament. There are some significant differences and contradictions in the biblical texts that have a bearing on historical accuracy and Christian theology.

The earliest surviving version of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus (circa 300 CE), contains the book the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas that had been read in churches for years. They were eventually expunged from the canonical New Testament for not reflecting orthodox thinking. There are other books that are actually referenced by New Testament writers that are missing from the canon. For example, Paul urges believers to read his letter to the Laodiceans (see Colossians 4:16). It is disputed as to whether the surviving Latin copy, originally in some Bibles, is genuine. Also, the writer of Jude references the Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch as though it was authoritative (Jude 14-15). It is ironic that Jude is accepted into the Biblical Canon, but the book he quotes from is not. The early New Testament was a fluid entity for many decades and determining what was really the Word of God was controversial. Ultimately, men who did not personally know the authors of the scriptures made the decisions.

Very few Christians realize how much time separates the existing manuscripts from the originals. For a god to be establishing a new religion, this is an abysmal way to have done it. Even if the original writers wrote precisely what God wanted them to, we don’t have a reliable access to those divinely inspired words.

(119) Book burning

The book is a universal symbol of learning, critical thought, open-mindedness, and the celebration of new and enlightening ideas. So naturally, a religion built on flimsy evidence would view books as an enemy to its success. The story of Christians burning books is a long and sorry tale.

In fact, book burning is discussed in the Bible, Acts 19:18-20:

Many also of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.

The early history of book burning is described at this website:

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/bookburn.html

The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed. Around 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt, leaving the helpless citizens watching the books go up in flames. [1]

Continuing this trend, around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. (The main target were pagan books on divination and magic but most of the books burned were mainly on liberal arts and law). Fearful of the emperor, many provinces of the eastern empire burned their own libraries to avoid his wrath.[2]

Perhaps the greatest single intellectual loss of the classical world was the destruction of the library of Alexandria. At one time, it was reputed to house about 700,000 books on subjects ranging from literature and history to science and philosophy. In the year 391, the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus (d.412), in his quest to destroy paganism, lead a group of crazed monks and laymen, destroyed all the books in the great library.

No other great libraries were spared by the Christians. Up to the fifth century many Greco Roman cities had libraries which housed more than 100,000 books. These were all destroyed by the Christians. Pope Gregory The Great (c.540-604) was the person responsible for destroying the last collection of older Roman works in the city.

Book burning by Christians has continued into the modern era, though normally via a different, more euphemistic approach such as book removal from libraries or school curricula. It also takes the form of removing ‘controversial’ information from school textbooks while adding fictional information.

Any belief system that fears competing ideas to the extent that it feels it must destroy or obscure the documentation of those ideas is a weak enterprise that should be avoided by any clear-thinking person.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
716) The de-conversion experience

Christians often offer as evidence for their god the emotional experience they feel as they are committing to the faith. But the feeling of being released from a counterfeit faith is often even more profound. The following is a quote from Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899):

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

It is very unlikely that a person abandoning a faith position associated with an omnipotent deity, the type assumed by Christianity, would experience anything other than bewilderment and discomfort. On the other hand, becoming released from a fictitious, stultifying, oppressive, and fraudulent religion would engender exactly what Mr. Ingersoll has described.
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim that it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent, and does nothing.

If God was silent and did nothing, then I might agree with you. That has not been the case for me. Maybe God just doesn't want to talk to you. If you were posting bad things about me every post then I would probably feel the same. LOL The good news is that he won't hold it against you as soon as you change your attitude.
 

RH Clark

Senior Member
I don't scoff at the idea that you and they believe you have a relationship with God.
I'm quite sure you believe you do.

I appreciate that Walt. It's not always the kind of relationship that it could be but that's my fault. Also, I'm not some weirdo that claims God tells him every move he needs to make. I'm just a regular guy who believes that I get direction and advice, and help, when I honestly seek God for those things.
 
Top