Why I’m no longer a Christian

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422351 Nov 25, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> AT least we know JFK died of a gunshot wound to the head, as there is at least one movie of it. Even with that, there are still inaccuracies in the reporting and conspiracy theories galore.
True, BUT, I use the historical method. I wasn't alive then. I was born on Dec 22 1964 exactly 13 months after JFK was killed. But I can still write an accurate history of the event. How? Simple.

The historian doesn't need to witness the event. It is better if an eye-witness does decide to write, but in most cases, it's a journal or diary entry or a letter that is written. Now remember, I said imagine that we don't have any photos or the famous Zapruder film. So what would I have to do to write an accurate history even though I wasn't an actual eye-witness?

I would have to interview eye witnesses. Where would I find eye-witnesses? Well I would start by going to Dallas and looking in the already printed archives. I would ask for access to Dallas Police Dept. reports. I would look for the names of witnesses who still might be alive and living in the area. It's only been 49 years since that fateful day. Now suppose I find somebody who was 20 years old and saw the fatal shot to JFK's head. They saw the impact of the bullet, the fragments of skull and brain matter. Gross huh? Do you think something that gruesome could escape somebody's memory?

Okay, so let's imagine that I found only one eye-witness in the Dallas area. But now let's also imagine that in my search for living eye-witnesses, I find the daughter of a now-deceased motorcycle cop who rode near JFK's limo. Let's imagine that she was 12 at the time and that she overheard him telling his wife (the girl's mother) everything he saw, and she saw him break down and cry over it. Wouldn't that memory stick with her? You can claim it's hearsay, but it would be credible hearsay because she has to admit that her dad broke down and cried, which may be damaging to his reputation as a seasoned cop. If that's the image that triggers her memory, then it's likely to be credible even though it may be embarrassing to the memory of her father.

So now we have one direct eye-witness, and one person who knows an eye-witness in Dallas, Texas. Where do we go next? We hop on a plane and fly to Washington D.C. We can ask to look at the public reports in the National Archives. From these, we get the names of those who might have been in the Presidential entourage that day. Then we start inquiring as to where they might live now (any near D.C.?) and attempt to contact them. Let's imagine that we find Mr. Clint Hill,(Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent) and he's willing to give an interview. He was the one who leaped onto the back of the limousine as it sped away to the hospital after the fatal shot. Does Mr Hill feel guilty that he couldn't protect the President? If so, this is a traumatic emotion. If he admits this emotion, it's highly likely that we can trust what he says about the events of that day.

So using just 2 primary sources and one secondary source, I can still write an accurate account of what happened on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, even 50 years after the event.

This is the way historicity is researched and written about WN. It applies to all kinds of historical research regardless of whether it's secular or religious.

And just in case you think we can't find Mr. Clint Hill, 50 years after the fact, check this out. The video at the end is heartrending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21250...

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422352 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't get to do the boat ride. My first trip there was in 1998 as a tourist. There was a lot to do. The Western Wall was really nice.
Did you know that the spot that is believed to be the site of the crucifixion is now a bus terminal? I would love to go to the Jordan River for a baptism. I did see them taking place, but I was more interested in seeing the other sites such as the Pool of Bethsaida and Mount of Olives, Garden of Gethsemane, The Garden Tomb. Being a historian, I was thrilled when I was granted access to the Israeli Antiquities Authority for a rare glimpse of archeological survey sites in Israel. When I presented my identification to the guard I expected him to just brush me off as another curious tourist. I was startled when he made a call and somebody actually came to the door and escorted me inside. I was like a kid in a candy store! I didn't expect access without an appointment, and the next thing I know I'm talking face to face with the assistant director for archeological surveys! That's how I got my second visit in 2005! It was work related and I got to observe some archeological digs! It's amazing to watch! Some of the writing I did from that trip was used as a basis for creating some new exhibits in some prominent museums!
Hello, I did go to the Pool of Bethsaida and the Mount of Olives. I also went to Lazareths tomb. We can share pictures on our avatars from time to time..I have plenty!!! I went to some sites that I was completely clueless to also...LOL I am not a historian. I went as a tourist. We did go to Shepards Field and En-Gedi. Just thinking about that trip makes me yearn to go back again..Thanks for sharing your story. I can tell you really enjoyed it..Good day
dognes

Masontown, PA

#422353 Nov 25, 2012
youtube.com/watch... …I have more Money less problems and no more emotional Manipulating people,ok?
DeathOnCouch

Waxhaw, NC

#422354 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True, BUT, I use the historical method. I wasn't alive then. I was born on Dec 22 1964 exactly 13 months after JFK was killed. But I can still write an accurate history of the event. How? Simple.
The historian doesn't need to witness the event. It is better if an eye-witness does decide to write, but in most cases, it's a journal or diary entry or a letter that is written. Now remember, I said imagine that we don't have any photos or the famous Zapruder film. So what would I have to do to write an accurate history even though I wasn't an actual eye-witness?
I would have to interview eye witnesses. Where would I find eye-witnesses? Well I would start by going to Dallas and looking in the already printed archives. I would ask for access to Dallas Police Dept. reports. I would look for the names of witnesses who still might be alive and living in the area. It's only been 49 years since that fateful day. Now suppose I find somebody who was 20 years old and saw the fatal shot to JFK's head. They saw the impact of the bullet, the fragments of skull and brain matter. Gross huh? Do you think something that gruesome could escape somebody's memory?
Okay, so let's imagine that I found only one eye-witness in the Dallas area. But now let's also imagine that in my search for living eye-witnesses, I find the daughter of a now-deceased motorcycle cop who rode near JFK's limo. Let's imagine that she was 12 at the time and that she overheard him telling his wife (the girl's mother) everything he saw, and she saw him break down and cry over it. Wouldn't that memory stick with her? You can claim it's hearsay, but it would be credible hearsay because she has to admit that her dad broke down and cried, which may be damaging to his reputation as a seasoned cop. If that's the image that triggers her memory, then it's likely to be credible even though it may be embarrassing to the memory of her father.
So now we have one direct eye-witness, and one person who knows an eye-witness in Dallas, Texas. Where do we go next? We hop on a plane and fly to Washington D.C. We can ask to look at the public reports in the National Archives. From these, we get the names of those who might have been in the Presidential entourage that day. Then we start inquiring as to where they might live now (any near D.C.?) and attempt to contact them. Let's imagine that we find Mr. Clint Hill,(Jackie Kennedy's Secret Service Agent) and he's willing to give an interview. He was the one who leaped onto the back of the limousine as it sped away to the hospital after the fatal shot. Does Mr Hill feel guilty that he couldn't protect the President? If so, this is a traumatic emotion. If he admits this emotion, it's highly likely that we can trust what he says about the events of that day.
So using just 2 primary sources and one secondary source, I can still write an accurate account of what happened on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, even 50 years after the event.
This is the way historicity is researched and written about WN. It applies to all kinds of historical research regardless of whether it's secular or religious.
And just in case you think we can't find Mr. Clint Hill, 50 years after the fact, check this out. The video at the end is heartrending.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21250...
Stop it. You're making sense. That's a no-no to these guys.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#422355 Nov 25, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote..."People can also choose to NOT believe".
It is not a question of choosing not to believe Grace...it is a choice to believe in a different path.
I can't help but laugh when a "believer" uses the word "non-believer". Are there really any people that do not "believe" in something?
Personally I find it a bit arrogant when Christians think that they are the ONLY "believers". They have high-jacked many words from our language and claim them as their own...believer...non-believer. ..faith...heathen...etc etc.
Grace...I did not make the choice to not be a "believer"...I have as much faith in my beliefs as you have in yours.
You know...I don't think that leaving the faith of Christianity was a choice. I woke up one day and realized that I had lost God in the midst of all the doctrine. I could not find him lurking within the walls of the church that I attended. So when I went a different path I didn't just stop believing...I went in search of the God that I could no longer find and my beliefs.
It took a long time for me to "find" God and my faith again. I didn't find him in a text book...nor through degrees from a college...not even through the pages of a leather bound book called the Bible. I found him in life...I found him through the people that I met and even the tragedies of life.
Not so long ago I became frustrated...I wanted not to believe in this God/Higher Power/Spirit in the Sky/whatever one chooses to call it. LOL After a few hours of trying to make the "choice not to believe"...I just laughed and said "okay"...that was futile!
The only choice I have made during my search for what I believe in was not to continue to sit in a church...call myself a Christian...and push the doubts that I had aside.
The ironic thing is Grace...the Muslims might say that you made the choice not to believe...the Hindus...Buddhists...Wiccans.. .etc...the same. When it comes down to it however...we are all believers...we just have found different ways of believing.
How we each display our faith is were the choice comes in...IMO.
this makes you a theist. you have only rejected the claims of the christian god (or maybe the abrahamic god) and while that would be a good start, it is a long way from an atheist, or a rational skeptic.

I do NOT BELIEVE.

I am a rational skeptic, when christian find that I reject their belief claims, they sometimes label me an atheist, and while the label may be accurate from their view, it is not from mine.

I (provisionally) accept those things for which there is evidence, and I adopt (on a probability basis) those things for which there is inference. If I were to label myself, I would choose Rational Skeptic (a bit too shallow, one protests).

I reject "belief" as "a way of knowing", and as a way of feeling, and finally, I reject belief as a philosophy. Which is another way of saying, that I have no respect for any human who employs belief as "a way of knowing".

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422356 Nov 25, 2012
DeathOnCouch wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it. You're making sense. That's a no-no to these guys.
<sigh> I know. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#422357 Nov 25, 2012
DeathOnCouch wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it. You're making sense. That's a no-no to these guys.
you are a christian

you are a hate troll

do you know the value of your opinion?

it is even less than the value of your faith.

you get the respect that you earn

as does your god

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422358 Nov 25, 2012
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
And they should stop all their complaining and count their blessings that they are in a good country that permits options, unlike China and other athiest utopias.
This may be the most ignorant thing you have ever written on Topix, Boob.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422359 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well some would complain that the right to display a Nativity scene during the Christmas Holiday, or the right to voluntary public prayer in school has been suppressed.
I know your response is going to be further dodge, evade, lather, rinse, and repeat, but this statement is utter, unadulterated bullshit wrapped up in vague language. The right to display Nativity scenes has not been suppressed. You can display as many Nativity scenes as you want to. What you don't have is a right to use taxpayer money to do so. That has not been suppressed, that has been upheld all the way to the highest court in the land. Laws have meanings.

The right to voluntary prayer has not been suppressed. Prayer is unequivocally allowed in public schools. Period. It can just not be led by the schools. Students may pray together and even have church meetings in America's public schools, it just can not be led or sponsored by the school. This right has not been suppressed but has been upheld by the highest court in the land. Laws have meanings.

You completely and utterly fabricated those contentions, as Christians always do, and that makes you an unashamed, unabashed, unrepentant equivocator of the lowest common denominator. I already know what your response to this will be. Your dodge will be that you stated "some would complain", but, the fact is your statement stands as utter nonsense with or without that qualifier. You and your lies disgust me.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422360 Nov 25, 2012
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>Only the Biblically illiterate believes that Noah's bloodline was impure. No pointin aruging the fact with unlearned atheists that think they are even more intelligent than God Himsllf.
As scripture states,some of you thnik you are wise but they became fools instead. Always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth
Only the Biblically addled think that there was such an animal named Noah who screwed his way to iniquity.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422361 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Well some would complain that the right to display a Nativity scene during the Christmas Holiday, or the right to voluntary public prayer in school has been suppressed. Then there are those who voice concerns over the equality of offering evolution and creation classes in public high schools. Roe vs. Wade, and Obama-care are some sensitive issues. While I don't personally complain, I can understand how some people may feel about these issues.
Well, since you made most of those up, you must feel about them as you do about your religion.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422362 Nov 25, 2012
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>I've been teaching the fact ever since I've been here that Adam and Eve were NOT the first people on earth.
And the flood wasNOT worldwide so the other races were not wiped out.
Many of my Christian brethren,like most unbelievers totally misunderstand much of the bible.
That's why I get shocked whenever an atheist can comprehend some of the scriptures a little better than some Christians do.Makes one go hmmm.
Yep, your secret decoder ring is better than everyone else's. where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, here, every day.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422363 Nov 25, 2012
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're confusing Jews with Kenites,those that "claim"that they are Jews or of the tribe of Judah but are not. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 testifies to this fact. God calls their deception of claiming they are Jews a blasphemy.
As I stated earlier,there is much that you are not qualified to discuss with me on my level my friend and if I were to take you there it would only serve to confuse you even more than you already are. So I say again, a descendant of Cain cannot farm the land even to this day. Many of them are calling themselves Jews AKA,OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH but in fact are impostors and are nothing but KENITES aka children of Cain that have stolen the identity of Judah and have fooled the unaware like yourselfinto believing that they are Jews.
Now why in the world am I discussing all this with you.Might as well be trying to teach you Chinese Arithmetic,LOL
You're confusing fantasy and reality. It's a Christian thing.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422364 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay now it's my turn to slap myself in the face <facepalm>. That's presupposition talking right there. How can you be so sure that Matthew didn't actually write notes while Jesus was still alive? Were you there?
Haha. Bwahahahahahahaha! The Ken Hamian "Were you there" defense! Classic! Surely even you aren't dense enough not to realize that this tactic also then discredits your entire religion. Bwahahahahahahahahaha! Ressurectionprotologist, you are full of shit.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422365 Nov 25, 2012
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Public buildings and property and Public schools are not the places to display religion of any kind....period. Scenes of the nativity, prayer, and creation are of religious orientation and belong in the churches and homes of those who practice.
No supression there at all.
Total failure on your part to make a point what so ever.
Boom!

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422366 Nov 25, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
Turn the other cheek, unless the strike hit you in the eye a little, then, it's an eye for an eye, or you get hit by a witch, or imagine that a witch did something to you. Any little pimple you might wake up with is excuse enough.
Love thy neighbor, unless they are a witch, and then you should not let them live.
Honor thy father and mother, again, unless they are a witch.
Thou shalt not kill, unless you've read the rest of the book. Remember the witch thing.
Do not covet thy neighbors wife, unless you covet to burn her as a witch.
I wonder how the Bible defines witchcraft.
Reanimation of the dead should qualify, no? Jesus was a demon then.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422367 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa! Hold on there! Didn't you read my paragraph? I said some people have complaints about such issues. I don't. I said I understand why some people have complaints about these issues. This does not mean I advocate those same views. Get a grip and stop assuming. Yes I'm evangelical, yes I'm an apologist. But that doesn't mean I side with everything that comes down the Christian pike just for the sake of solidarity.
You assume wayyyyyy too much.
But, other than abortion, those are all things you made up. You know, like your religion.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422368 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't proven your case. Not by a long shot. Don't go all "Dewey Defeats Truman" on me now.
Why don't you think I could write an accurate historical account of the JFK assassination? What makes you so sure I couldn't?
This should be interesting.
Oooh, Oooh, ooooh, I know. Because you are an idiot. Case closed.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422369 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You do? You really need to check your ego at the door. You're not gonna like my next statement, but I don't really care either.
Do YOU know Greek? I DO.
Do YOU know Hebrew? I DO.
Have YOU been to Jerusalem? I HAVE. TWICE.
Do YOU have an Undergraduate's Degree w/ honors in Ancient History from a secular University? I DO.(Binghamton University - SUNY)
Do YOU conduct historical research as a profession? I DO.(Not in religion either - just sayin')
If anyone around here has extensive knowledge without having gone to a Divinity School, it is I. But I do not correct your errors for my own ego, no matter what you might think. I correct your errors because they are just THAT. ERRORS.
Go ahead. Get mad, get nasty, it matters little to me how you react.
What does matter is what I've seen, where I've been, and that the conclusions I have reached are more plausible than not.
Your ego is dedicated to yourself.
My ego is dedicated to knocking your presuppositions right where they belong: in the dust.
Now shall we continue?
Argument from undocumented self-authority. A logical fallacy. Fail.

Sparky, since your pocket god is imaginary, all of your assertions are ego stroke.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422371 Nov 25, 2012
Tony17 wrote:
<quoted text>You're kidding me. You actuallyreallyconsiderwhat you have been presenting here as your knowing the scriptures? Then your standards are very low when it comes to accurately comprehending Gods word my friend.
Ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Wouldn't you make a mint selling your superior secret decoder ring on an infomercial?

"For just $19.99, plus S&H, get the Tony17 magic Bible decoder ring, so you too can claim to be the only one who can "accurately comprehend" that big, old dusty Bible. But wait! There's more! If you act now, Tony will throw in a free prayer cloth replica of the Shroud of Turin! Amaze you friends. Call now! Sham operators are standing by!"

If I had a dollar for every a christian who claimed that their interpretation was right, no matter whose it differs from, I would have 2 billion dollars. GMAFB.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min NoStress4me 56,159
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 min bad bob 182,967
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 13 min Mike 383
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min Steve III 650,553
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 34 min andet1987 2,348
Poll White Men, Would You Have A BABY by a Black Woman (Apr '10) 51 min Johnny 511
why have black people got no history? (Apr '11) 1 hr Dr Banonator 17
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 hr Hangman 971,867
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 20 hr kobechi3 71
More from around the web