Texas church shooter was a militant atheist

[Spotlite]

Talk about self aggrandizement.

I guess you always have that out when confronted with difficult questions you dare not answer. "I believe so I understand better than those who do not." Can you really convince yourself that is true? Or do you only wish it to be true and deep down know better?

Hey every man has his go to card lol

BTW, I never said I understand better than those who do not believe. If that is the message that you got from me, it was misunderstood or either I delivered it wrong. Does it sound better if re-worded to say that I don't understand how it is possible for the non believer to understand the spiritual aspects of the scripture, if the non believer does not believe that the spiritual aspect exist?

 

[atlashunter]

Hey every man has his go to card lol

BTW, I never said I understand better than those who do not believe. If that is the message that you got from me, it was misunderstood or either I delivered it wrong. Does it sound better if re-worded to say that I don't understand how it is possible for the non believer to understand the spiritual aspects of the scripture, if the non believer does not believe that the spiritual aspect exist?

That's fine. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your position. You have indicated if I understood correctly that belief imparts an understanding that is simply unavailable to those who don't believe. I disagree with that but let me ask you this. Can understanding of scripture once gained, be lost? I'm not talking about discernment in how to live or what choice to make that maybe prayer helped you make. I'm talking about understanding what the bible says. Your response to the human sacrifice questions seemed to amount to "You don't get it". If you can explain why you think that I'd be interested. Your explanation of how Jesus blood covered your sins I think was what I had been saying all along. And keep in mind I was a believer at one time. That should have given me discernment unavailable to the nonbeliever. From where I stand now I am confident that wasn't at all the case nor is it the case that I have lost special powers of discernment that I once had. To the contrary I know much more about christianity and its origins now than I did then.

John 3:16 is not a difficult verse to understand. It doesn't take special discernment to comprehend its message. And it's entirely reasonable that someone could understand it, not believe it, and not find it moral.

 

[Spotlite]

That's fine. I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent your position. You have indicated if I understood correctly that belief imparts an understanding that is simply unavailable to those who don't believe. I disagree with that but let me ask you this. Can understanding of scripture once gained, be lost? I'm not talking about discernment in how to live or what choice to make that maybe prayer helped you make. I'm talking about understanding what the bible says. Your response to the human sacrifice questions seemed to amount to "You don't get it". If you can explain why you think that I'd be interested. Your explanation of how Jesus blood covered your sins I think was what I had been saying all along. And keep in mind I was a believer at one time. That should have given me discernment unavailable to the nonbeliever. From where I stand now I am confident that wasn't at all the case nor is it the case that I have lost special powers of discernment that I once had. To the contrary I know much more about christianity and its origins now than I did then.

John 3:16 is not a difficult verse to understand. It doesn't take special discernment to comprehend its message. And it's entirely reasonable that someone could understand it, not believe it, and not find it moral.

People walk away from it every day.

It's not a "special power". It is nothing more than faith for those that are seeking God. I don't know your circumstances in its entirety, but somewhere that faith turned to doubt for whatever reason that only you know. Considering your point that my response eluded to "you don't get it", it is not that you don't get it because of the lack of intelligence, it has nothing to do with that. In order to get the full depth of the cross (death, burial and resurrection), it was more than just an event, it was symbolic as well and requires faith and trust in God. Death was conquered, our sins are covered, we are buried with Christ, and we have the hope of resurrection and eternal life. You can very well read and comprehend that, but when you have faith to believe that, it's a different ball game.

 

[hummerpoo]

... Christianity’s first systematic adversary, ridiculed the Christian conversion method. He claimed that Christians only approached the ignorant and uneducated, women and children as dim-witted as themselves.

…and subsequently claimed to have established that the Apostles, who inspired awe in all Christians, were deceptive individuals. As a result of these disciples’ malicious practices, he argued, the Christian scriptures were naturally unreliable and contradictory as well.

‘certain persons [Christians] who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, “Do not examine, but believe!” and, “Your faith will save you!”’

Do you see how ↑this↑ last one could so easily be a misunderstanding of “Examination alone will not lead to a believing faith that will save you” (salvation by the grace of faith)?

These quotes are from the late second century A.D., maybe early third — all Roman I think.
Attribution is available in the source document.
http://www.academia.edu/2519819/Inc...nti-Christian_Imputations_in_the_Roman_Empire

Same OLD stuff; but the AA’s here may be missing an opportunity in the incest and cannibalism angles — infanticide, pretty much, falls down in the chute before the gate opens.

 

[Israel]

Atlas,

John 3:16 states a fact. The truth of the matter in Jesus appearance among us. Even in reference to the "why" of it.

But I have never met any believer that finds it "not difficult to understand" in the terms in which a man might think he understands anything.

To love what is so firm in opposition to that love and to be so undeterred by all the resistance such opposition can muster and manifest; epithets, heaping of scorn, the complete and utter disregard and seeking of separation from the "proposer" to the most violent and final imposition of the most ignominious execution possible to it, never leaves me without wonder.

Yes, wondering about it. "How can it be?" How can a someone be? How is that someone in their being? Of what constitution are "they" that such a profound sticking to purpose in the face of all opposition can prevail, and not for the purpose of dominance (which is easily and perhaps all too often inferred), but to the very end of "making friends"?

Men understand the doing of a thing to a personal gain of a something, but who of us truly understands the plan and full purpose of doing a thing solely in behalf of another...and another not presenting as friend or ally, but staunchest of enemy?

If you "have that", if you are that in your being, one who not only can claim to love, but manifestly make it plain to no resistance by yourself against the most grievous insult to the purity of such love (and truth) you are master in a thing I seek.

But if, in some way, like me, you easily see or have seen in yourself an easy turning away of friend in need, let alone the easy casting of despite upon an assumed "enemy", then like me, you may see a need of salvation.

If people appear (more often than we may care to admit) a bother, a source of troublesome disquiet to the soul, intruders into what one may prefer to "set up" as universe, whose coming of need asks more in measure than we may measure to our own benefit, then, you are not unlike me at all.

But, if you are sufficient to all, for all, in no matter of what weariness you may find your frame or personal disposition, then, I salute you.

If I may add, the particulars and experience of discovery in that place, that moment of "seeing" the need of salvation can be of such deep terror and grief it is no place a man has any right (or even ability) to impose upon another, it is of no man to "make another" go there.

But one having gone or been has every right secured to speak of the face he has seen come shining in that blackness. Indeed, he cannot "help himself", nor, having been there, in that place to which all "helping of himself" must lead does he care much for making choices, anymore. If he has been to the place he knows. He knows his own choices are themselves the illusions invented to cast a light toward a mirror of the face he has come to love above all, his own. But in such darkness he must fail, cannot but see his own failing. He is stripped of all "matches" in his bag to light a way for him to see his own face, and then invent a new one, a better one, to escape. But here, he may see a face. It is not the face of religion, nor of doctrines dusty bound, of practice nor ritual. It is the face of a man who has gone before to carry light where no light was, nor can be seen till entered. One face. And the beholding of that face of light that is to a purpose gone there, to light a man's way out...and it, that face, in all eclipses what is "else". There is no need to tell a man "find the blackness" so you can find the way out. God appears, and no man can withstand that darkness unless he find it be turned to light toward him. Our proud words and thoughts are ample invitation to Him. Our choicest of them.

 

[bullethead]

To break it down, I do separate myself from fake Christians. Who wouldn't? Fake Christians tell on their selves, you don't have to look for them. As I said before, they quote scripture on Sunday and steal your horse on Monday. As far as top tier, I never suggested that. I readily admit that I could be wrong about something, and I pray daily for guidance.


I am not sure how you could think I am a model Christian and make the comment below.

"I do separate myself from fake christians"

 

[WaltL1]

"I do serarate myself from fake christians"

We've heard this "fake Christian" thing from a number of different Christians now.
I cant help but wonder how many "real" Christians there actually are.
There might only be like 2 or 3 of these dudes from the sounds of it

 

[atlashunter]

Israel,

I realize you think John 3:16 is a fact but that doesn't make it so. Whether it is or not, the truth of the claim doesn't change the morality of the claim.

 

[atlashunter]

Spotlite,

I understand what you are saying. You have faith and nonbelievers obviously don't. But many of them at one time did. We've been where you are. We've established that human sacrifice is immoral. I would extend that to the idea of vicarious redemption and scapegoating through any blood sacrifice. These ideas have their origins in ancient near east religions that practiced human sacrifice including the Canaanite religion from whose pantheon your god came. It's a vestige of a time when people would slay their first born to their god to gain a victory in battle. This is the origin of the god you worship and blood sacrifice, human sacrifice is one of the vestiges that come with it culminating in what Christians believe was the ultimate sacrifice of a god in human form.

 

[Spotlite]

We've heard this "fake Christian" thing from a number of different Christians now.
I cant help but wonder how many "real" Christians there actually are.
There might only be like 2 or 3 of these dudes from the sounds of it

1 John 1:6
The correct term would be hypocrite.

I don't know how many there are out there, but you and both know they are.

As far as anyone posting in here.......Unless you know the life they're living.....I don't know how anyone can make a determination of who's fake. Whoever has that ability really does have special powers

 

[Spotlite]

Spotlite,

I understand what you are saying. You have faith and nonbelievers obviously don't. But many of them at one time did. We've been where you are. We've established that human sacrifice is immoral. I would extend that to the idea of vicarious redemption and scapegoating through any blood sacrifice. These ideas have their origins in ancient near east religions that practiced human sacrifice including the Canaanite religion from whose pantheon your god came. It's a vestige of a time when people would slay their first born to their god to gain a victory in battle. This is the origin of the god you worship and blood sacrifice, human sacrifice is one of the vestiges that come with it culminating in what Christians believe was the ultimate sacrifice of a god in human form.

Interesting. But I do have to consider the historians in the matter.

 

[Israel]

Israel,

I realize you think John 3:16 is a fact but that doesn't make it so. Whether it is or not, the truth of the claim doesn't change the morality of the claim.

What morality would that be?
One that is subject to change?

Or a righteousness that is not?

 

[atlashunter]

Interesting. But I do have to consider the historians in the matter.

"When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed, but look only and solely at what are the facts."
~Bertrand Russell

How about a consideration of the facts?

 

[WaltL1]

1 John 1:6
The correct term would be hypocrite.

I don't know how many there are out there, but you and both know they are.

As far as anyone posting in here.......Unless you know the life they're living.....I don't know how anyone can make a determination of who's fake. Whoever has that ability really does have special powers

Well hypocrite and "fake" are definitely different things.
In my opinion, there are no "fake" Christians.
There are just Christians.
And they act all kinds of different ways. Some of them break every tenet there is at some point or another.
Some of them do their honest best not to break any of them ever. Some fall in between there.
But they ALL fall under the blanket of "Christian".
Not real. Not fake. Just Christian.
Your own Christian beliefs acknowledge that man CANT HELP but sin. That you WILL sin. That if you follow the rules you can be FORGIVEN for those sins.

The correct term would be hypocrite.

Hypocrisy is just one of those sins. Doesn't make a Christian "fake".
It makes them a sinner.
Which according to Christianity.... ALL men are. Which includes all Christians.
So actually... its the sinner that is "real".

 

[Miguel Cervantes]

So actually... its the sinner that is "real".

That has always been the case, sans redemption, and what separated them from the Pharisees. Jesus didn't go in search for Scribes and Pharisees and Leaders of the Church during his travels.

He sought out, talked to, and taught "sinners" and occasionally healed them. My rub with Christians, which I am one of, is they don't spend any effort speaking to strangers on a ground level basis outside of the walls of the church, ie. they can't relate to them, feel uncomfortable around them, and most of the time take an attitude of spiritual superiority over them.

Jesus's life was fairly well documented in the Bible and nothing I've read in the NT suggest that he ever acted that way with the common man. He made specific efforts to speak to them on their level.

However the few times he did speak with the leaders of the church, the Pharisees, I found he was quite stern and even condescending to them for their blatantly obvious ignorance and tunnel vision if you will. Yet when speaking with the leader of a nation, he spoke to him as a common man.

Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. Arrogance, hypocrisy, being judgmental, lying (gasp) and flat out intolerance. If Jesus had all of our personality traits, as Christians we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Spotlite]

Well hypocrite and "fake" are definitely different things.
In my opinion, there are no "fake" Christians.
There are just Christians.
And they act all kinds of different ways. Some of them break every tenet there is at some point or another.
Some of them do their honest best not to break any of them ever. Some fall in between there.
But they ALL fall under the blanket of "Christian".
Not real. Not fake. Just Christian.
Your own Christian beliefs acknowledge that man CANT HELP but sin. That you WILL sin. That if you follow the rules you can be FORGIVEN for those sins.

Hypocrisy is just one of those sins. Doesn't make a Christian "fake".
It makes them a sinner.
Which according to Christianity.... ALL men are. Which includes all Christians.
So actually... its the sinner that is "real".

Ok so for the sake of clarification, anything that I ever referred to as fake should have been hypocritical.

 

[WaltL1]

That has always been the case, sans redemption, and what separated them from the Pharisees. Jesus didn't go in search for Scribes and Pharisees and Leaders of the Church during his travels.

He sought out, talked to, and taught "sinners" and occasionally healed them. My rub with Christians, which I am one of, is they don't spend any effort speaking to strangers on a ground level basis outside of the walls of the church, ie. they can't relate to them, feel uncomfortable around them, and most of the time take an attitude of spiritual superiority over them.

Jesus's life was fairly well documented in the Bible and nothing I've read in the NT suggest that he ever acted that way with the common man. He made specific efforts to speak to them on their level.

However the few times he did speak with the leaders of the church, the Pharisees, I found he was quite stern and even condescending to them for their blatantly obvious ignorance and tunnel vision if you will. Yet when speaking with the leader of a nation, he spoke to him as a common man.

Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. Arrogance, hypocrisy, being judgmental, lying (gasp) and flat out intolerance. If Jesus had all of our personality traits, as Christians we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a

 

[Spotlite]

However the few times he did speak with the leaders of the church, the Pharisees, I found he was quite stern and even condescending to them for their blatantly obvious ignorance and tunnel vision if you will.

Oh what a tangled web we humans weave. Arrogance, hypocrisy, being judgmental, lying (gasp) and flat out intolerance. If Jesus had all of our personality traits, as Christians we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Agreed!

 

[Israel]

Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a what all this turned into:

This part:

Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see

Yes. Jesus well understood the need of salvation/redemption...

Because he sees/saw clearly

what all this turned into

Really, what men, if abandoned to themselves, cannot help but doing.

 

[atlashunter]

Sometimes I cant help but wonder if Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua (yes I believe the man existed) could see what all this turned into, he would do a

Yeah considering a bulk of the theology came from a man who never knew Jesus I suspect it wouldn't go the way christians think it would.