Why I’m no longer a Christian

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#415644 Oct 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree with you and so does the Creator, so much so that the penalty for failure is death!
i hope you don't fail in any of the criteria and it's too bad for you that you don't get to establish the criteria...
Your religion doesn't get to establish the criteria for anyone but it's followers, silly. The rest of earth's population establish criteria based on something else.

That's the trouble with rabid Christianity...you think you can establish your religious rules for everyone. You can't, and it pisses you off.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#415645 Oct 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree with you and so does the Creator, so much so that the penalty for failure is death!
i hope you don't fail in any of the criteria and it's too bad for you that you don't get to establish the criteria...
By the way..you're going to die just like everyone else. Your body will rot in the ground just like everyone else's.

You don't have proof of anything past that. You're just such a sissy that you can't stand to think that this is the end of you.

Believe me, if there is any justice, you'll get the same life you've had this time, but it will be harder because you didn't learn any lessons in humanity this time around. Next time you will be forced to learn those lessons.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#415646 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>They say the same about you, you know. Their religion is just as valid. Your religion has a history filled genocide, Inquisitions and Crusades. They just haven't been around long enough to get to the true Inquisition stage yet, though they have had Crusades.
If you would study your bible you would know how God expects things to be done. If I asked you to tell me when the church of the bible was started by showing me where you got this information at to back it up, let me know your answer and I'll tell you mine and let's see what we come up with.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#415647 Oct 29, 2012
“The basic idea of my argument could be put (a bit crudely) as follows. First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally accept it. And if one can’t accept both naturalism and evolution, that pillar of current science, then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science.” -Alvin Plantinga

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#415648 Oct 29, 2012
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with that.
Although Paul lied through his teeth, he did not consider Jesus to be God at all, for he wrote, "Jesus the man, is a mediator between God and men. He is on record for saying that.
Paul preached a resurrected Jesus and the Church founded Christianity on that lie.
Even Jesus' own disciples did not believe that he was resurrected. According to Luke, Peter went home from the tomb, wondering what had happened.
Have a nice day, mate. It is good night from Singapore.
Paul refers to Jesus as Creator and Kyrios, but aside from that Paul repeatedly references passages in the Old Testament which refer to Yahweh, and applies them to Jesus.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#415649 Oct 29, 2012
clw3 wrote:
“The basic idea of my argument could be put (a bit crudely) as follows. First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low.(To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally accept it. And if one can’t accept both naturalism and evolution, that pillar of current science, then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science.”-Alvin Plantinga
This thread is not about evolution.... There's another thread for that.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#415650 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> you think you can establish your religious rules for everyone. You can't, and it pisses you off.
I can't, but Yahweh did...and that pisses you off

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#415651 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Brilliant! Still doesn't sound like porn. I guess there are only a few who would think of it as sounding like porn, which is a good thing.
Heh heh...Those defective pieces of the puzzle that never quite fit properly and distort the purpose of the real picture.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#415652 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Never entered my mind. It sounded Native American to me, but then I'm of NA heritage so I am predisposed in that way.
Nearly identical meaning WN. Lakota are some of the closest to spirit and nature. IMO

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415653 Oct 29, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Jesus never said He was God.
2. Ishmael was the first born of Abraham and Hagar was Abraham's second wife.
There was nothing wrong with having more than one wife at that time. However, Abraham's divorcing her was a crime under Canaanite law but Abraham's sacrifice of Ishmael to Ba'El was not.
LOL - "cast out the bondwoman and her son for he will not share the inheritance with the son of promise"

this is what the entire mideast crisis is based on!

while you've been playing with dungeons and dragons, i've been seeking God;)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415654 Oct 29, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like you discount all the evidence to the contrary.
Cite the verse where Jesus says "I am God." and we can settle this matter once and for all.
IT has been settled once and for all and the entire Bible is the scripture that i'm citing to you as proof. dig in!;)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415655 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Jesus would have been considered a bastard at the time of his birth, as Joseph and Mary were not married. Don't throw stones. People tend to pick them up and throw them back at the glass house you live in.
born of a virgin, but, yes, that's what joseph thought until he received a vision from God:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415656 Oct 29, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this straight... God sent his son, who is actually himself to kill himself so that people don't have to slaughter animals to atone for a concept called sin, that he had to create in the first place, since God is the creator of all things?
Yeah, sounds like the truth to me.... Sigh...
somethings bothering you enough to feel the need to debate about here:)

you created sin. now, do you care to take responsibility enough to have it irradicated in you?:)

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#415657 Oct 29, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree with you and so does the Creator, so much so that the penalty for failure is death!
i hope you don't fail in any of the criteria and it's too bad for you that you don't get to establish the criteria...
Death is not a penalty. It is but a part of the process of the perpetual cycling of the essence of energy. Your biological vessel is merely a part of that cycle.
It is not "special", except to the perspective of the individual cognizance that perceives it as such.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#415658 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> I agree that Jesus was not a fraud. Making him the Christ was. But they still can't believe in his words, they have to turn to Paul.
The Gospels state that Jesus is Christ. Do you believe that Paul wrote the Gospels?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415659 Oct 29, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to take the 3rd option. Sit here, drink coffee, and watch you implode as you get more and more angry about people mocking a place that you call the "lake of fire". Because there is no such place. No justice for those who mock you. All of your work to convince people otherwise is in vain.
no lake of fire?! where do you think that stuff bubbling out of volcanos is coming from???

i suppose you're gonna try telling me that there is no heaven either even though it continues to expand at an immeasurable rate!

i know where i wanna go between the two ......:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415660 Oct 29, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to take the 3rd option. Sit here, drink coffee, and watch you implode as you get more and more angry about people mocking a place that you call the "lake of fire". Because there is no such place. No justice for those who mock you. All of your work to convince people otherwise is in vain.
BTW - assuming that i'm angry and a hater just cuz i disagree with you is so.....'gay' for lack of a better term.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415661 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Blood sacrifices were started long before your God came into being. From the most ancient times, people tried to appease their Gods with animal and even human sacrifices. Of course, that never stopped a tornado, a flood, a hurricane, an earthquake or a war from being lost.
To think that a human being was sacrificed for someone else's sin is a new tack on the scapegoat theory. Not only that, it is immoral to allow someone else to die for what YOU do.
Those who are the least responsible for their own actions are most attracted to this religion, and they don't mind having had someone die to cover their as*es.
I have never done anything in my life that deserved death, and certainly not someone else's death.
It's the draw of fundamentalist Christians who those who are afraid they will have to answer for their actions and want to escape punishment.
I've got news for you: If there is a life after this one, the only just thing for a God to do is make it a life based on your actions in this life...not kill off himself (as if a deity could actually die!) to excuse you of anything you do. What a putrid way to walk blindly through life! Jesus NEVER, EVER taught such a concept.
umm.....sorry but NOTHING started before my God:)

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415662 Oct 29, 2012
NoStress4me wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you know that is not what I was saying in the least. In the end I believe that we will each be held accountable for our lives. I do not believe that I am discounting any benefits by taking full responsibility for my life. To be honest I find it odd that you don’t seem to think we should.
how in the world are you ever gonna even come close to taking responsibility for failing to "love the Lord your God with all your heart mind, soul and strength" and not "loving others as yourself"???

good luck with that!

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#415663 Oct 29, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Your religion doesn't get to establish the criteria for anyone but it's followers, silly. The rest of earth's population establish criteria based on something else.
That's the trouble with rabid Christianity...you think you can establish your religious rules for everyone. You can't, and it pisses you off.
perhaps we should all follow the water nymph's criteria of.......what the hell is it that you're deciding to believe today???

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min June VanDerMark 599,923
The Christian Atheist debate 5 min Truthiness 2,018
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Buck Crick 865,349
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 24 min Passing thru 6,524
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 55 min WasteWater 6,314
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr marvindo 40,893
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 1 hr middleman1 2,787
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 2 hr Oop 463
Sleeping with mother (Oct '13) Sat Frannie 44
More from around the web